BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Trademark and Copyright

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, September 10, 2020

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$347.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will guide IP licensor, licensee, and bankruptcy counsel on the impact of the Bankruptcy Code on IP license agreements. The panel will examine the Supreme Court's decision addressing trademark licenses in bankruptcy. The panel will analyze the issues from all perspectives and outline best practices for addressing IP licenses in bankruptcy proceedings.

Faculty

Luke A. Barefoot
Partner
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Mr. Barefoot’s practice focuses on bankruptcy litigation, insolvency, corporate restructuring and related disputes. He was inducted into the International Insolvency Institute’s Next Generation at the London conference on June 19, 2017.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Daniel Ilan
Partner
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Mr. Ilan’s practice focuses on intellectual property law, as well as cybersecurity and privacy. He has significant experience in representing leading multinational corporations and private equity firms in IP, technology and privacy issues arising in transactional contexts, particularly transactions involving acquisition of or investment in IP, data and various technologies. Mr. Ilan is a frequent author and speaker on IP and cybersecurity topics and has worked extensively on IP in bankruptcy matters.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

When Congress codified the Bankruptcy Code Section 365(n), it defined intellectual property in 101(35) to include patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. It did not specify trademarks, leaving interpretive challenges to the courts.

In 2019, in Mission Products Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology L.L.C., the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy on trademark licenses. The Court held that a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license agreement does not "deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark."

Separately, additional questions have emerged in recent years as to the ability of a debtor-licensee to assume or assign an IP license, and whether or not an IP license is executory and can be rejected by a debtor-licensor.

Listen as our authoritative panel examines the impact of the Bankruptcy Code on IP license agreements and reviews the Supreme Court's opinion in the Tempnology case. The panel will also provide insights for dealing with IP licenses in bankruptcy proceedings.

Outline

  1. Impact of Bankruptcy Code on IP license agreements (rejection, assumption and assignment, retention of license rights)
  2. Treatment of trademarks
  3. Analysis of definition of executory contract as applied to IP licenses
  4. Debtor as licensor
  5. Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology L.L.C. (U.S. 2019)
  6. Debtor as licensee
    1. Ipso facto clauses
    2. Assumption and assignment

Benefits

The panel will review these and other high priority questions:

  • What are the implications of Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology for trademark licensees when the licensor becomes a debtor in bankruptcy?
  • What special rights are accorded licensees under Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code?
  • What are the continuing obligations of a debtor-licensor after rejecting a license agreement?
  • Can a debtor licensee assign an IP license over the licensor's objection?