U.S. law on common intellectual property There are differences in intellectual property law or in the interpretation of intellectual property law between jurisdictions. The „territorial” nature of intellectual property refers to the fact that countries adopt their own intellectual property laws, usually by law, and these intellectual property laws have no application or application outside the country where they are enacted. Common intellectual property can also be the „easy” option because it does not require a thorough discussion of how intellectual property should be distributed and does not seem to give one party an advantage over another. Unfortunately, common ownership of intellectual property is dangerous. It is important that intellectual property is agreed in a cooperation agreement before work takes place, although I accept that this is often not possible. At least intellectual property should be discussed and agreed upon before money is spent on the patenting process. When a company pays for innovative external work that is done, it generally expects to own any intellectual property. It can also expect to manage patent filings with the Patent Office and maintain all patents issued at its own expense. As a general rule, a company will attempt to own all the inventions relevant to its activities, but it must accept that the other party, particularly when it is a university, may have intellectual property. In this case, the company will generally apply for exclusive access rights for a trading period.
Intellectual property rules may vary depending on different national laws and it is therefore important to take this into account. With regard to British patents, Section 36 of the Patents Act 1977 deals with the rights of co-owners. Subject to a contrary agreement, any co-owner has the right to exploit the patent himself, but must obtain the consent of the other owner: (a) to modify or revoke the patent; (b) licensing under the patent; or (c) to give up or mortgage its share of the patent. The issue of common intellectual property ownership is therefore even more complex when the same IP product is protected in several jurisdictions, because different countries have different IP laws. In addition, parties based in different countries that deal with common ownership in accordance with their individual national laws may have very different expectations and/or experiences as to what it means to be a co-owner. Under Article VI of the Lusaka Agreement, ariPO may seek cooperation with non-member state governments and other organizations and institutions wishing to help ARIPO or its members achieve their goals. Please read the legal disclaimer in case of www.ipag.at/projekt/download before using the IPAG model agreements. A license is permission to do things with a product that would otherwise be prohibited.
Intellectual property rights confer broad monopoly rights on the holder and, therefore, licensing agreements play an important role in trade and industry in order to grant third parties a full or partial right to the exploitation of intellectual property rights under certain conditions and, as a general rule, against the payment of royalties that may be limited in space, time and content.