1. A subsequent exclusive license agreement is not to be deemed null and void due to the fact that it was concluded in violation of the provision of Art. 31(3), second sentence of the Patents and Utility Models Registration Act in conjunction with Art. 26(1) and (2) of the Obligations and Contracts Act (obligation of the licensor not to grant licenses with the same subject matter to third parties).
2. A subsequent exclusive license is not to be deemed null and void due to impossible subject matter since, as a general rule, the right to use the invention is a transferrable one.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Author information
Consortia
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Translated from the Bulgarian by Veronika Dimova.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Obligations and Contracts Act, Arts. 21(3), 26(1) and (2); Patents and Utility Models Registration Act, Art. 31; Commercial Code, Arts. 587, 590. “Exclusivity Clauses in Patent Licenses”. IIC 53, 1237–1242 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01239-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01239-x