The common intellectual protection procedure raises very serious control problems, particularly with regard to the patented intellectual protection procedure. U.S. law allows any co-owner of a patent to sell, use, sell or offer the patented invention to other owners without consent or accounting. This is unlike most other types of common property, where, although one party can act without the other, there is often a requirement for a revenue sharing. Fortunately, the law contains an evasion clause on this subject, which states that joint patent holders may mutually restrict the possibility of ceding patent rights if they have “a contrary agreement”. The definition of intellectual property developed in common must be considered with the utmost care and is one of the most common areas for future differences of opinion. More often than not, a party will feel that it developed a technology during the JDA period, but that it was developed separately from the JDA and that it should be “separate” and not “shared.” In a way, a formal Common Development Agreement (JDA) resembles a pre-marital agreement in a marriage. New business associations are emerging under a coat of enthusiasm, often with little concern about possible problems along the way. Even as a marriage, a common development project begins with parties that have individual ownership and want to become more than they are individually. If the rights of the parties are not clearly defined from the beginning, when the honeymoon ends, the trouble begins. Contrary to popular myth, the invention is generally not the province of the only inventor who works alone. Even Thomas Edison employed large teams of collaborators to develop new inventions.
With the increasing complexity of the business, more and more companies are coming together to create new intellectual properties, sometimes in flexible arrangements and sometimes in well-defined joint ventures. All these types of agreements are full of problem possibilities. A joint development agreement is often linked to a grant or project plan and, in this case, the content of such a joint development agreement must be adapted to the relevant conditions of the grants, and the corresponding development agreement must also be submitted to the grant authority. Therefore, when developing development contracts, the requirements set by the grant authority must be taken into account in advance. If you enter into a development agreement with a knowledge institute, you must also take into account possible illegal state aid when entering into agreements in a development agreement on the use of the context and foreground of the Knowledge Institute. Depending on the form, content and circumstances, a development contract can be terminated in different ways: by expiry of the development contract, termination, dissolution, annulment, nullity and consensual consent. Some of these termination options may be excluded by contract in the development contract. On the other hand, a development contract can normally be terminated after a reasonable period of time on the basis of case law (otherwise it would remain in force indefinitely), even if no termination is provided. The IP property of each party prior to the JDA refers to all confidential or proprietary information held by each party. It`s not just patents, trademarks or copyrights; and a thoughtful investigation should focus on trade secrets and processes, as well as on research projects under development. In short, joint development agreements allow companies to act together to do more than they could achieve on their own.