This 2010 case is a good reminder that courts will give effect
to arbitration clauses if that's what the parties have chosen
in their license agreements.
In PRM Energy Sys., Inc. v. Primenergy,
LLC, 592 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2010) , the United
States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit decided to uphold an
arbitration clause in a patent license agreement, which was drafted
to cover "all disputes arising under" the agreement. A
complex series of agreements and disputes led PRM to sue Kobe
Steel, a non-party or "non-signatory" to the original
license agreement that contained the arbitration clause. However,
Kobe Steel convined the court that the arbitration clause should be
enforced. The court decided that PRM's claims were so
intertwined with patent license that contained the arbitration
clause that it would be unfair to allow PRM to rely on the license
agreement in making its claims, but to avoid the arbitration clause
of that same agreement.
In Canada, courts have also shown that they are prepared to
uphold arbitration clauses. Consider this case:
The case of University of Toronto v. John N.
Harbinson Ltd. 2005 CanLII 47089 (ON SC), dealt
with a broad arbitration clause that said: "Any dispute,
controversy or claim arising from this Agreement or its breach,
termination or alleged invalidity shall be settled by arbitration
in accordance with the Arbitrations Act of Ontario, as
amended." In this case, the court decided that the arbitration
clause should be upheld, particularly since no Patent Act
claims or remedies were being sought.
Related reading: See Did
You Say Arbitration in Kazakhstan?, reviewing a
case where arbitration was triggered by one of the parties, and the
Alberta Court decided that the breach of contract questions fell
within the scope of the arbitration under the law of
Please click 'Next Page' link below for Part 2
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The recent Federal Court of Canada decision in Voltage Pictures LLC v. John Doe and Jane Doe (2014 FC 161) has already received considerable attention for its approach to deterring so-called "copyright trolls."
As we approach the opening ceremonies of the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, the Canadian Olympic Committee has launched a lawsuit against outdoor apparel maker The North Face in the British Columbia Supreme Court.
Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has recently dealt the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE) another blow against its strategy of claiming an exclusive monopoly in the words 'engineer' and 'engineering', and opposing trademark applications that include these words.
On February 20, 2014, the Federal Court of Canada in Voltage Pictures LLC v John Doe and Jane Doe 2014 FC 161 ordered an Internet service provider (ISP) to release the names and addresses of 2000 subscribers alleged to have illegally downloaded a copyrighted movie using peer to peer networks and the BitTorrent protocol.