Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

The Application of 365(n) to Cross-License Agreements

By Jeff J. Marwil, Jeremy T. Stillings, and Brandon W. Levitan
February 25, 2014

In high-tech industries such as semiconductor manufacturing, the practice of engaging in broad patent cross-license agreements with competitors has become common. This practice has arisen from the recognition that the complex web of patent rights in such industries is so thick that participants may not be able to avoid infringing on existing patents, or even definitively determine whether a new product infringes on existing patents prior to bringing it to market.

Moreover, once industry participants have engaged in patent cross-licenses, they may make substantial investments in reliance on the enforceability of those cross-license agreements. For example, the costs of creating a state-of-the-art semiconductor fabrication facility exceed $1 billion. See Heck, Kaza, and Pinner, Creating Value in the Semiconductor Industry at 9, McKinsey on Semiconductors (Autumn 2011) (“The cost of building leading-edge fabs continues to increase as well; for example, the average 8-inch fab costs $1.6 billion to build, while a state-of-the-art 12-inch fab costs $3 billion to $4 billion.”); Brief for the Semiconductor Industry Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, and Business Software Alliance as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees at 11, Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 737 F.3d 14 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-1802), ECF 42-1 (“The average semiconductor fabrication facility costs $4 to $5 billion dollars to construct”).

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.