IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Mar 2017

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:



D E C I S I O N 0 1 R E S T R A I N T S O F C O M P E T I T I O N European Union 0 1 Genentech Inc. v. Hoechst GmbH 0 1 Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH 0 1 0 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition , Munich 2017 1 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , Art. 101(1) Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition on the licensee, under a licence agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a requirement to pay a royalty for the use of a patented technology for the entire period in which that agreement was in effect, in the event of the revocation or non-infringement of a licenced patent, provided that the licensee was able freely to terminate that agreement by giving reasonable notice. Patents; Licence agreement; Royalty; Revocation; Non-infringement; Termination

This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-017-0561-6.pdf

“Genentech”, IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2017, DOI: 10.1007/s40319-017-0561-6