Since claims of thought are essentially claims and therefore only financial losses are covered, the reference to “receivables, claims and shares” inevitably refers to the obligation of “defence” and not to the obligation of “compensation”. Therefore, in the face of the defence obligation, references to claims, claims and claims and other similar languages should be removed. Second, when the taker markets products using the technology granted in a country that is not in the context of compensation, the licensee is not required to exempt the licensee from any right that the technology granted infringes the intellectual property rights of third parties. If the licensee is not willing to change the above restriction and the taker is sure of its distributors, the licensee should propose to the licensee that the contract includes at least the countries in which the products are marketed with the technology granted in the amount of compensation. A licensee may also negotiate a reduced royalty or exclude the applicability of royalties in countries where the patent award is not renewed or where the technology granted is not registered as a patent. Licensees prefer to limit their liability in the event of “direct damages” to amounts paid under the software license agreement (in some cases, the amounts paid in the 12 months prior to the date of claim). Licensees prefer to exclude liability for “indirect damage.” Normally, licensees are able to make such an application. However, the licensee`s responsibility to exempt the taker from “direct damage” and/or “indirect damage” from third party acts should be total. In a third-party action in which the technology granted violates the intellectual property of third parties, the licensee may be required to pay damages in excess of the licensee`s maximum liability in accordance with the software license agreement. It is important to note, however, that if the liability of the licensee in the event of “direct damage” is limited and/or liability for “indirect damage” is excluded, the same is naturally true for licensees. Therefore, if, at a later date, the licensee suffers a loss as a result of a third-party allegation that the technology granted violates the intellectual property rights of third parties, the licensee`s right to compensation or compensation from the licensee would be limited to the “direct harm” cap and, if the breach results in “indirect damages,” it could not be covered by compensation. B) If you are the licensee, you agree to compensate your licensee in case of injury, especially if you commit a breach of confidentiality or abuse of the product, especially the software. Each party to a licensing agreement naturally wants limited liability for itself and unlimited liability for its counterpart.

Avoid signing an undecided agreement that is unfavourable to you by carefully reading the “limitation of liability” provisions. As a general rule, a licensee has little room for negotiation in a contract, such as where the licensee is a market leader, is an effective monopoly, an established technology or a technological standard has been granted, or the technology granted has not been the subject of a default remedy since its implementation.