September 16, 2019Charleston Partner Andrew Connor Selected to Become DLI Riley Fellow
March 1, 2019
Reprinted with permission from Law360
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the matter of Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC (In re Tempnology LLC) on Feb. 20, 2019. The petitioners hope to resolve a circuit split regarding ongoing trademark usage pursuant to a license agreement following the rejection of such agreement under Title 11 U.S.C. Sections 365(a) and (n).
The primary issue in Tempnology first arose in the seminal 1985 case Lubrizol Enters. Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers Inc., in which the Fourth Circuit held that an “executory contract” under Section 365(a) of the Title 11 of the United States Code included intellectual property licenses. Further, the Lubrizol court held that rejection of an executory contract effectively terminates an intellectual property license.
Three years later and in reaction to Lubrizol, Congress enacted additional legislation to define “intellectual property” within the Bankruptcy Code. Congress also added Bankruptcy Code Section 365(n) regarding what happens to intellectual property following the rejection of an executory contract.
These materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.