Paris Court of Appeal, 22 May 2018, Spouses Z v. ITM Sud Ouest, no. 16/24803

A trade-name license agreement for the operation of a store was concluded between ITM and Joriane, a company controlled and managed by the Spouses Z. In 2002, ITM undertook to buy (“promesse unilatérale d’achat”) the shares of Joriane company over a period of 10 years, this unilateral commitment included an arbitration clause. A decision in [...]

Paris Court of Appeal, 13 February 2018, Strube GmbH & Co.KG v. Sesvanderhave SA/NV, no. 15/17137

The Paris Court of Appeal reversed an order for enforcement award, dated on the 11 June 2015, citing article 1520, 3° and 4° of the Code of civil procedure. In addition to sentencing Strube to pay overdue charges and damages under the contract, the Tribunal also ordered Sesvanderhave to grant Strube, upon request, a non-exclusive [...]

ICC, 29 November 2017, Blackberry v. Nokia

An ICC award issued on 29 November 2017 has ordered the famous Canadian operator Blackberry, to pay US$137 million to Finnish operator Nokia, after the failure of payments under a patent licensing agreement. Starting in April of 2017, the arbitration was marked by Blackberry’s acceptance of the terms of decision of the arbitral tribunal, which [...]

2018-01-20T20:49:14+01:00November 29th, 2017|ICC, International awards|0 Comments

US District Court for the District of Columbia, 13 November 2017, Sharp & Sharp Electronics v. Hisense USA & Hisense International, no. 1:17-cv-01648-JEB

Sharp and Hisense, two television manufacturers, entered into a licensing agreement in 2015. In 2017, Sharp terminated the agreement alleging that Hisense had violated regulatory standards and failed to maintain the quality of its television sets. The latter sent a request for arbitration before the SIAC and sought an emergency order requiring Sharp to abide [...]

Paris Court of Appeal, 26 September 2017, Hoechst v. Sanofi-aventis Deutschland, no. 16/15338

Two companies entered into a worldwide non-exclusive license agreement for a patented technology. The licensor initiated arbitration proceedings alleging that the licensee had not paid the current royalties. By four arbitral awards, the sole arbitrator held the licensee responsible. Subsequently, it brought forth annulment proceedings to set aside the awards. The Court of Appeal refused [...]

2018-01-14T18:59:29+01:00September 26th, 2017|Court of Appeal, Paris Court of Appeal|0 Comments
Go to Top