Royalty meaning

How to use this Checklist This Checklist aims to flag common issues that emerge during the negotiation and drafting of a publishing agreement. For a model publishing agreement, see Precedent: Publishing agreement—pro-publisher. For more detail on matters raised in this Checklist, consult Practice Notes: Assigning intellectual property rights; Licensing intellectual property rights. Where appropriate, this Checklist can also act as the basis of a simple, non-binding heads of terms. For guidance on doing so, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. The third column can be used to capture observations or comments as the Checklist is completed. Checklist schedule for proposed publishing agreement Checklist Further information Notes (if any) Parties Verify each party’s legal status and consider whether any third parties (such as group affiliates) will benefit from the proposed agreement. Commencement, duration and termination Confirm the start or effective date. Determine whether the agreement lasts for the full copyright term in the work or for a...

Free and open source software (OSS) Free and open source software (OSS) is a collective term for software released under a licence that gives the recipient rights to use, alter, and share it—whether in its original form or a derivative—usually without charge or royalty, and for which the software’s source code is accessible. This stands in contrast to the software licences lawyers are more accustomed to, which may seek to stop the licensee from accessing the source code, using the software across multiple users, locations or computers, and from making and distributing copies. Free and open source software (often called ‘FOSS’) emphasises freedom rather than restriction. Although it is typically provided free of charge (gratis), the ‘free’ in ‘free software’ is intended to indicate liberty, not price. Another acronym, ‘FLOSS’, is occasionally used, where the ‘L’ stands for ‘libre’. While there are many advantages to employing OSS (and many widely adopted OSS projects are stable, well-developed and cost-effective), there are some downsides, as well as considerations to weigh during...

Alaska Airlines Inc v Virgin Aviation TM Ltd and another company [2025] EWHC 2505 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The principal outcomes of Mr Justice Foxton’s analysis can be stated as follows: Where an unjust enrichment claim founded on failure of basis is invoked to stop payment of a contractual amount, the correct characterisation is that this engages the defence of circuity of action (para [49]). In that scenario, circuity of action does not mean the debt is never due; rather, it supplies a defence to liability. A broadly drafted no set off clause captures such a defence, so summary judgment can be granted (para [52]). To reach those conclusions, Foxton J reviewed a range of authorities in which no set off provisions were relied upon (see especially para [47]), and he also considered and clarified other decisions relevant to the underlying issues of principle. Accordingly, a debtor cannot avoid a summary determination merely by pointing to...

In this issue: AI and IP Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information AI and IP Generative AI in context of copyright—knowing your hypersurfaces from your stochastic parrots. Toby Headdon, of Bristows LLP, reviews the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs’ study on GenAI and the challenges it presents for copyright owners. The Parliament’s report is highly technical and uses dense terminology, which this article helpfully clarifies. See News Analysis: Generative AI in context of copyright—knowing your hypersurfaces from your stochastic parrots. Copyright & associated rights Foreign performers’ claims against the UK for failure to apply EU law on royalties potentially remain viable post-Brexit (AFM and SAG-AFTRA v The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology). The High Court has refused applications for summary dismissal and strike out of several...

Court of Justice rules on Czech reference concerning omission of hotel occupancy in copyright royalty tariffs and possible breach of Article 102 TFEU The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Case C‑161/24, OSA, arising from a Czech reference seeking clarification on whether a collective management organisation’s failure to take account of hotel room occupancy when setting royalties for licensed works can amount to an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. The Court held that, depending on the particular circumstances, overlooking hotel occupancy may constitute an abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. Background In December 2019, the Czech Competition Authority (CCA) found that OSA, the Czech collective management organisation for musical and other artistic works, had abused its dominant position in the market for copyright licensing. Between 2008 and 2014, OSA applied flat‑rate royalties to hotel operators for audio and audiovisual works made available via in‑room television and radio equipment, without reflecting actual room occupancy. The CCA concluded that this pricing...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines how standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing feature in patent disputes before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). It focuses, in particular, on the legal position following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 August 2020 in the combined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals, and the practical consequences of that decision. For further information, see News Analysis: Supreme Court—English courts can determine terms of global licences for portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet v Huawei). Since then, two further significant rulings on FRAND rates have been issued in England and Wales and have been the subject of appeal judgments, as noted below: First, judgment was handed down on 16 March 2023 in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo following a High Court FRAND trial in January 2022. It offered additional guidance on several of the issues considered in Unwired Planet. The appeal judgment in InterDigital v Lenovo was handed...

This Practice Note serves as a practical ‘how to’ for incorporating open source software within your organisation, outlining the potential implications that may arise from its use. It summarises what open source software is, how it can be deployed, and the conditions attached to its use. It also addresses further legal factors businesses ought to weigh when opting to use open source software. The guidance is written from the standpoint of a business intending to adopt existing open source solutions. For further information on open source software, see the following Practice Notes: Free and open source software Free and open source software—strategy and policy Free and open source software—audits Free and open source software—public sector GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0—commentary What is open source software? In broad terms, open source software refers to software: that is supplied under a licence permitting the user to use, adapt and/or share the software (in original or altered form)...

Patent box The patent box is an elective regime that delivers an effective corporation tax rate of 10% on worldwide profits attributable to qualifying patents and comparable intellectual property (IP) rights. Profits that qualify for the relief are, in substance, charged to corporation tax at the reduced rate of 10%. The relief is given effect through legislation that permits a deduction when calculating a company’s trading profits for a particular accounting period. For general background on the patent box, see Practice Note: Patent box—key features of the regime. To align with BEPS Action Plan 5, the patent box rules were revised on 1 July 2016 to introduce an R&D fraction restriction, which can curtail the value of patent box claims for businesses that have acquired relevant IP and/or sub-contracted development of relevant IP to affiliates. A series of ancillary amendments to the rules accompanied these changes to ensure the restriction was implemented correctly...

[ insert address of trade mark proprietor ] Our ref: [ insert reference ]Your ref: [ insert reference ] [ insert address of recipient ][ insert date ] Dear [ insert name of recipient ] Authorisation to use registered trade marks: [ insert details of trade marks at issue ] We are the owner of the registered trade marks listed in Schedule 1 to this letter (the Trade Marks). For clarity, in this letter agreement (the Agreement) we refer to ourselves as we. Further to your request dated [ insert date ] to use the Trade Marks in [ insert territory ] (the Territory), we confirm our permission for such use by [ insert name of requesting party ] (you), on the basis set out in this Agreement as follows: 1 Authorisation to use [ From the date of this letter OR From [ insert effective date ] ] we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, [ royalty free, ] [ fully paid-up, ]...

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] Parties [ insert name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] with number [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (Licensor) [ insert name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert company number ], with its registered office at [ insert address ] (Licensee) Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party and, together, the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties. BACKGROUND (A) The Licensor [ is the [ registered ] proprietor of OR is the applicant to register OR has the right to licence and/or sub-licence ] certain intellectual property rights. (B) The Licensee is [ insert background to licence/relevant transaction ]. (C) The Licensor has agreed to grant the Licensee a licence of these intellectual property rights and the Licensee has agreed to...

This Agreement is dated [ date ] Parties 1 [ insert name of Company ], with its registered office at [ insert address ] (registered in England under no [ insert number ]) (the Company); 2 [ insert name ] of [ insert address ]; 3 [ insert name ] of [ insert address ]; 4 [ insert name ] of [ insert address ]; and 5 [ insert name ] of [ insert address ]...