Without speculating the terms of the agreement which I don't know, we know that the patent holder, prior or present, did not bring suit until now, this is the first go around licensing effort and the company has many cases pending to prove that it is "legit". This is different from cases where a patent in question had already been challenged or receiving royalty for sometime.
Down to the basics -- an essential ingredient of an enforceable contract is "consideration", something one give up in exchange for another. The agreement to pay is to exchange for the use of someone else's property, namely the patent rights. If any defendant could successfully argue that the patent were not to be granted in the first place, the patent holder shall therefore have no property to license, nothing to give back for the exchange. I see ample grounds for a licensee to initiate action to put themselves back to the position where they were before, if it is economically feasible. Other than patent rights, I cannot image anything else would take the place for such exchange for royalty payment. Correct me if I were wrong, I could not think any legal agreement could take away the basic right of a licensee to contest the validity of a patent, at anytime within legal limitations, and to sue for recovery based on the believe that the patent is valid. Again, little that I know, there may be "air-tight" clauses from the legal professional that can defy Business Laws 101. |
