Termination Of Licence Agreement

In our experience, licenses are often agreements between commercial enterprises, under which the licensee is free to manage its activities at its own discretion, subject to the restrictions provided for in the agreement. Ward sought an injunction that prevented Mevon and its related companies from selling the licensed products in New Zealand in violation of the license. Mevon contradicted that it had actually terminated the license. In 1998, the predecessor of Mevon Pty Limited (Mevon) granted the predecessor of Ward Equipment Limited (Ward) an exclusive licence to modify, adapt, manufacture, use, sell, lease or process certain building products in New Zealand. The main product was called “Superdeck”, which allowed goods to be brought into a tower with an off-site crane. Here, the resignation came from heaven and could theoretically take place at any time. This is another commercial offer for Ward, who would have assumed that the license would be maintained at least for the life of the patents. Each party had an explicit right of termination for breach of the license by the other party. Ward also had the right to terminate with a period of three months after the patents expired. The licence did not provide for either party`s right to terminate with a reasonable period of time without justification.

Mevon claimed to rely on an implied right to terminate with a reasonable period of time. The judge found that three months` notice was sufficient. It seemed to depend, at least in part, on Ward`s poor performance. Ward argued that the notice period should be 12 months, given that most orders had long lead times and one of the Companies in the Ward Group was entirely dependent on the licence. However, the judge felt that because of the low income generated, these were only formal arguments, and he did not give them much weight. The Parties jointly intend to maintain in force the intellectual property licenses until the expiration of all licensed intellectual property rights. . . .