Forum Replies Created
Not sure if I understood the question here. Some elaboration (my understanding)
140(1) – e.g. patent licence / lease of a patented article etc. cannot have terms restricting the licensee or the lessee that forces the patentee to use only raw materials (not covered under the patent) for a patented process or other restrictions.
140(4)(a) – e.g. say the case of a shoe franchisee. A franchisee sells the goods of only one company. A franchisee is a distributor of services or products of a company.
140(4)(b) – e.g. say the licensor is not the owner of a patent. Then contract invalid. Any act covering 140(1) and any suit raised by an innocent licensee (i.e. who was not aware of the fact that the licensor was not owning the patent) will not legitimise the ownership of the licensor.
140(4)(c) – Licensor can be the exclusive supplier of patented spares / services for patented articles etc. Quite logical, considering his rights u/s 48.
140(1)(d) – exclusive grant back. 2(1)(f) – definition of ‘exclusive licence’ prevents even the patentee to use the patent. Extending this concept to an exclusive grant back, it means that the licencee even if he makes any modifications while using the patent, he has no right over them, or even use them and has to licence it exclusively to the patentee. Sec 140(1)(d) does not prohibit a grant back licence though.