Exclusive licensee meaning

In this issue: Key developments and materials Electricity and gas market regulation and licensing Electricity Code Modifications Renewable energy Capacity Market, balancing services and energy system flexibility Nuclear energy Air emissions, efficiency, and climate change International energy Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Key developments and materials Spending Review 2025—Key Energy and Environment announcements On 11 June 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, laid before Parliament the government’s Spending Review 2025 (SR25). This News Analysis spotlights the SR25 announcements and pledges most pertinent to the energy and environment sectors. See News Analysis: Spending Review 2025—Key Energy and Environment announcements. Access secured to six market-leading energy law titles We are pleased to confirm that we have recently broadened our Lexis+ Legal Research service by obtaining an exclusive licence from Globe Law and Business to publish six market-leading energy...

Original news Dean v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] EWHC 1998 (Admin); [2017] All ER (D) 72 (Aug). The Planning Court concluded that the grant of a PEDL under section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (PA 1998) was not entirely constrained by the statutory licensing code, so the Secretary of State could agree to alter the licence terms. Consequently, it rejected the claimant’s case that the deed varying the licence was ultra vires, and dismissed his application for judicial review. What was the background to the case? In 2008 the defendant issued a PEDL conferring exclusive rights on the licensees to search, drill for and recover hydrocarbons within a defined geographic area. The licence period was split into three stages: a stage for the licensee to undertake the agreed works programme of seismic and geological surveys a stage to obtain Oil and Gas Authority approval of a field development plan a production stage ...

Original news Camelot Property Management Ltd and another company v Roynon [2017] Lexis Citation 28 What issues did this case raise? Why is it significant? The claim was issued by Camelot Property Management Limited and Camelot Guardian Management Limited (together, Camelot). Camelot is an organisation established to assist with the security of vacant property and to safeguard empty premises. They were engaged by Bristol City Council to protect a former, and at that time vacant, elderly care home in Bristol from vandalism and unlawful occupation. Camelot permitted Mr Greg Roynon to occupy part of the premises. Camelot maintained that his presence was solely as a property guardian and was strictly in line with an agreement between them which they contended was, and which on its face appeared to be, a licence. Camelot served notice terminating that licence, yet Mr Roynon declined to vacate the property. Camelot therefore commenced proceedings to recover possession of the property in question through the court. The matter proceeded by way of a preliminary issue,...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Hong Kong. Applicable law In Hong Kong, the Registered Designs Ordinance (Cap 522) (RDO) primarily regulates infringement of registered designs. Exclusive right of the registered owner Once a design is registered in Hong Kong, the proprietor alone may import, make, sell, hire, or offer or expose for sale or hire within Hong Kong any article to which the registered design, or one not materially different, has been applied (RDO, s 31(1)). What are infringing acts? Under RDO, s 31(2), infringement includes: carrying out any act reserved to the registered design owner’s exclusive rights manufacturing items that enable such articles to be produced in Hong Kong or abroad (for example, moulds or dies) undertaking any act in relation to a kit that would infringe if done to the assembled article producing anything to enable a kit to...

Intellectual property laws grant exclusive entitlements to holders of patents, copyright, design rights, trade marks and other protected rights. Owners of intellectual property rights (IPRs) may stop unauthorised use of their IP and may exploit it, for instance by granting licences to third parties. However, the ability to commercialise does not shield IPRs from scrutiny under competition law. Like any other arrangement, deals involving IPRs (e.g., licences enabling a licensee to use the licensor’s IPRs) must comply with Article 101(1), TFEU. For many would-be licensees and licensors, the initial task in checking whether their arrangements accord with EU competition rules is to consider if a block exemption regulation can apply. The block exemption most commonly relevant to an IP licence is the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBE, Regulation 316/2014), the latest iteration of which took effect on 1 May 2014 and expires on 30 April 2026. Article 2 of the TTBE excludes technology transfer agreements from the scope of Article 101(1), TFEU...

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) states that the author of a work is the individual who brings it into being. The creator is not invariably the proprietor of a work, though, as a rule, they hold the initial copyright unless the work is produced in the course of employment (see below), when the employer takes it. Knowing who the author is matters across much of copyright law. For instance, the duration of protection typically runs by reference to the author’s lifetime; authors may assert moral rights; and protection might not subsist at all unless the author holds the requisite qualifying status. Identifying the owner of the copyright is also crucial; as a matter of prudence, title and ownership ought to be confirmed before acquiring or taking a licence of a work. Ownership is equally central in infringement disputes, because only the copyright proprietor (or an exclusive licensee) may bring proceedings against alleged infringers. Authorship Authorship in primary and secondary works For works created...

[ Alleged infringer’s name and address ] [ Date ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] [ Insert patent number and title of patent ] We act for [ name and address of client ] (‘our client’). We are writing in relation to your conduct and activities. The Patent(s) Our client is the [ owner OR assignee OR exclusive licensee ] of [ GB Patent number [ add patent number ] OR EP(UK) Patent number [ add patent number ] ], a copy of which is enclosed for your reference (the ‘Patent’). [ Insert name of alleged infringing company ] It has come to our client’s notice that [ name of alleged infringing company ] [ is OR appears to be ] [ manufacturing and/or importing [ description of allegedly infringing product ] (the Product) OR using a process falling within this patent [ description of allegedly infringing process ] (the Process) ], at least since [ insert earliest date of evidence available...

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] Parties [ insert licensor name ], a company registered in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert company number ] and registered office at [ insert registered office ] ( Licensor ); and [ insert licensee name ], a company registered in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert company number ] and registered office at [ insert registered office ] ( Licensee ). Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party and, together, they are the parties. Background The Licensor is the [ author and ] [ exclusive ] owner of certain rights in works protected by copyright. The Licensee is [ insert description of Licensee’s background/the background to the licence or relevant transaction ]. The Licensor has agreed to grant the Licensee a licence, and the Licensee has agreed to accept that licence on the terms...

This Agreement is made on [ insert date ] Parties [ insert licensor name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ], whose registered number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (Licensor); and [ insert licensee name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ], whose registered number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (Licensee). Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party, and together the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties. Background The Licensor is the [ author and ] [ exclusive ] proprietor of certain rights in works protected by copyright. The Licensee is [ insert description of Licensee’s background/background to licence or relevant transaction ]. The Licensor has agreed to grant a licence to the Licensee, and the Licensee has agreed to accept a...

Service occupancy In England, an employee who lives in property owned by their employer to carry out their duties, and who has exclusive possession, occupies either as a tenant or as a licensee under a service occupancy (also known as tied accommodation). The distinction is significant because, under a service occupancy, the right to terminate arises when the employment ends, whereas a tenancy may benefit from security of tenure. A service occupancy is a form of licence that arises where: it is an express term of the employee’s contract of employment that they reside in particular accommodation from which they can better perform their duties (Glasgow Corporation v Johnstone); or if there is no such express term, one can be implied on the basis that it is essential, rather than merely conducive, that the employee lives in specified accommodation for the better performance of their duties...

Cases which distinguish leases from licences are very fact sensitive. The usual starting question is whether there is ‘exclusive possession’—the legal ability to keep all others off the land. This feature is the badge of a tenancy; in contrast, a licensee does not enjoy it. Where the parties’ arrangement is set down in a written agreement, the enquiry centres on the proper construction of that instrument, interpreted against its factual background. Do the terms, on their true meaning, confer exclusive possession? More precisely, if an agreement grants: (i) exclusive possession; (ii) for a term; and (iii) at a rent, then, absent a lodging set-up or special circumstances, it amounts to a tenancy: Street v Mountford. Alternatively, where nothing has been recorded in writing, whether exclusive possession has been conferred is determined by considering all the circumstances, including asking: what the parties would ordinarily have expected in the particular context; and whether services are provided in the name of the owner or of the occupier......