View Page As PDF
Share Button
Tweet Button

The United States Supreme Court recently declined to grant certiorari to Qimonda, a foreign manufacturer of semiconductors subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany. The request sought to determine the applicability of German insolvency law to licensees of U.S. patents.

Qimonda AG, which entered insolvency in 2009, holds as its primary asset an IP portfolio containing nearly 10,000 patents, of which 4,000 were held in the United States. In doing so, the Supreme Court let stand the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., 737 F.3d 14 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, No. 13-1324 (Oct. 6, 2014), to affirm a prior Bankruptcy Court decision declining to apply German insolvency law to holders of U.S. patent licenses. Therefore, licensees of Qimonda’s U.S. patents were allowed to retain their respective rights under such licenses pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(n).

Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code is a mechanism by which a representative of a foreign insolvency proceeding may petition a U.S. Bankruptcy Court to recognize a foreign insolvency proceeding. In the case of Qimonda, the administrator of the German insolvency proceeding requested the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to recognize the insolvency proceeding in Germany and to allow him to reject the intellectual property licensing agreements under German insolvency law. While the U.S. Bankruptcy Court did recognize the Qimonda insolvency proceeding, the court did not allow the administrator to reject and terminate the license agreements of U.S. patents under German insolvency law. Instead, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court upheld the licensees rights under § 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to elect to retain the benefits of their respective U.S. patent licenses.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court when it employed a balancing test and determined the harm to licensees of the U.S. patents outweighed the benefits to the estate of Qimonda should the court rule that the administrator be allowed to reject the U.S. patent license agreements under German law. On a separate basis, the court also held that deferring to German insolvency law to the extent it allowed for the unilateral termination of U.S. patent licenses would be manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, however, did not extend to licensees of non-U.S. patents.

While the Qimonda case on the interplay between Chapter 15 and § 365(n) is only binding in those jurisdictions within the Fourth Circuit, it is a case of first impression in the United States, and will likely be highly influential if and when the matter subsequently arises in other circuits. However, for now, licensees of U.S. patents can feel more comfortable knowing their rights to such licenses will likely be protected from more draconian laws of foreign insolvency proceedings. 

For more information, please contact:

Stephen M. Gross 
248.220.1337
sgross@mcdonaldhopkins.com

Jeffrey S. Grasl
248.220.1336
jgrasl@mcdonaldhopkins.com

David B. Cupar
216.430.2036
dcupar@mcdonaldhopkins.com

The twists and turns of business restructuring are complex and demanding. Our attorneys approach every case with creativity and insight to ensure the solutions are cost-effective and practical. At every turn, you can be confident that our attorneys will guide you through the process, always providing practical and informed advice. We are positioned to respond to the special demands of a variety of matters in a wide range of industries, including health care, automotive, retail/distribution, franchise distribution and technology, real estate/construction, telecommunications, and mining/exploration.

It is critical in today's technology-driven, global marketplace to effectively procure and manage intellectual property. Our clients rely on us to provide prompt, thorough and efficient counsel on matters involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, trade secrets, intellectual property procurement, and enforcement. We focus on management and enforcement for Fortune 500 companies, mid-cap companies and start-ups. Supported by the talents of our litigation and business law attorneys, our IP attorneys deliver a complete range of innovative and comprehensive solutions, as well as insightful industry expertise. Our in-depth approach enables us to meet the business goals of our diverse client base. In fact, the hallmark of our IP practice is to dovetail our clients’ intellectual property needs with their business plans and strategies, presenting a cohesive and thorough outcome.

COMMENT
+