Licensed production

Last updated

Licensed production is the production under license of technology developed elsewhere. [1] The licensee provides the licensor of a specific product with legal production rights, technical information, process technology, and any other proprietary components that cannot be sourced by the licensor. [2]

Contents

This is an especially prominent commercial practice in developing nations, which often approach licensed production as a starting point for indigenous industrial development. [1] While licensed production in developing nations provides stimulus to the production and technical capabilities of local industry, in many cases it remains at least partly dependent on foreign support. [1]

History

An example of global licensing agreements: national governments which have purchased foreign licenses to manufacture arms and ammunition are depicted in blue. Licensed production of arms1.png
An example of global licensing agreements: national governments which have purchased foreign licenses to manufacture arms and ammunition are depicted in blue.

The four most common applications of licensed production have historically been automotive engines and parts, [5] weaponry, [1] aircraft, [6] and pharmaceuticals. [7] During World War I, it was more common for licensing agreements to take place between companies in the same country; for example, Opel was granted a license to produce BMW-designed aircraft engines for the German war effort. [5]

During the 1920s, European economists began advocating licensed production of foreign goods as the cure for "industrial particularism" [5] —it allowed countries to bypass the costly research and development stage of acquiring products with which their own industries were unfamiliar, and refocus on the domestic manufacture of preexisting overseas designs. [8] This allowed for a much higher rate of production, [5] and was considerably cheaper than national sourcing and off-the-shelf acquisition. [8] European automobile manufacturers were the first to adopt this practice, producing a number of specialized American components for their passenger cars under license. [5] The United States not only supplied European factories with the necessary blueprints and licenses, but also sourced American-made tooling equipment accordingly, which allowed the automobile companies to optimize their production lines. [5] By the 1960s it was not uncommon for an entire specialized industry—such as the manufacture of rotary aircraft in the United Kingdom —to be dependent wholly on foreign-licensed components. [8]

A number of countries began making improvements to foreign products manufactured under license, and were even able to re-export them successfully. [9] This trend resulted in some technology suppliers imposing additional conditions on the licensee. [3] The United States began inserting pro forma statements into licensing agreements known as "side letters", which required the free sharing of any improvements made to American technology. [10] Other attempts were also made to control the destination of licensed products, particularly with regards to the arms industry. [3] For instance, France stipulated that military vehicles manufactured in South Africa under a French license were not to be exported to other foreign nations without its express approval. [11] Yet another form of common licensing restriction related solely to the licensing activity, regulating whether the specified product was fully produced or partly assembled, and whether entire products or their individual components were manufactured. [3] The governments of Germany and Switzerland imposed similar restrictions on military vehicles manufactured in Argentina and Chile under license. [2]

In some cases, the original technology supplier did not need to manufacture the product itself—it merely patented a specific design, then sold the actual production rights to multiple clients. [9] This resulted in different companies separately manufacturing identical products licensed from the same licensee. [9] For many licensee companies, licensed production by other firms provides a continuous outlet for their proprietary technology, increasing their return on investment and prolonging the economic life of the product. [2]

Developing nations began accounting for a significant percentage of licensed production during the late twentieth century. [3] Governments of developing nations often sought to encourage rapid industrialization, reduce dependence on foreign imports, and combat high levels of unemployment by creating and retaining local jobs. [3] However, in many of these nations there was not a strong tradition of technology-based industrial development, and local firms were seldom active participants in creating indigenous technology through research and development. [2] Since their research capacity was typically too limited to meet their goals, adopting licensing agreements for foreign technology was an especially attractive option. [3] Manufacturing licensed products generated employment and empowered local industry while reducing dependence on imports. [3] It also avoided the risks inherent in the development of new products by taking advantage of the proven reputation of products which had already achieved success in foreign markets. [3] The economic life of many products, namely in the automotive and defense sectors, have been prolonged by overseas licensed production long after they were considered obsolete in their countries of origin. [2]

Developing nations such as Pakistan and Singapore which built important segments of their industry on licensed production have now themselves become licensors of technology and products to less developed states. [12]

Theoretical basis

1933 Fiat 508 manufactured under license in Poland by Polski Fiat. MHV Polski-Fiat 508 1933 01.JPG
1933 Fiat 508 manufactured under license in Poland by Polski Fiat.

Licensed production is defined as an overseas production arrangement, usually as a direct result of inter-state trade agreements, that permits a foreign government or entity to acquire the technical information to manufacture all or part of an equipment or component patented in the exporting country. [6] According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), it must constitute a partnership between an intellectual property owner and a licensee who is authorized to use such rights under certain conditions. [3] The licensee is manufacturing a product for which it has been granted production rights under specific conditions, while the licensor retains ownership of the intellectual property thereof. [3] In some cases the licensor will supply the necessary technical data, prototypes, and/or machine tools to the licensee. [3]

While licensed production is often dependent on the appropriate technology transfers, it does not necessarily entail ownership and management of the overseas production by the technology supplier. [6] However, the licensor does retain the right to continue to use the licensed property, and to attribute further licenses to third parties. [3] Occasionally, licensees may themselves sub-license a third party with or without the agreement of the intellectual property owner. [3]

Licensing agreements determine the form and scope of compensation to the intellectual property owner, which usually takes the form of a flat licensing fee or a running royalty payment derived from a share of the licensee's revenue. [3] The licenses can be terminated by the licensor, or may expire after a set date; however, the technology and knowledge, once transferred, cannot be rescinded, so even if the licensing agreement expires they remain in the licensee's possession. [3]

Two related commercial practices are foreign subcontractor production and the proliferation of knock-down kits. Foreign subcontracting occurs when a product's original manufacturer contracts the production of its individual parts and components to a second party overseas. [6] Such arrangements are not considered examples of licensed production because they do not involve the explicit licensing of technological information. [6] Knock-down kits are regarded as a prerequisite to licensed production; they consist of products assembled locally from imported, pre-manufactured parts. [13]

Quality control and unlicensed production

Some licensors find it difficult to regulate the quality of their products manufactured under license. [3] It is not always made clear to consumers where exactly a particular good originated, and a poor quality licensed product may damage the reputation of the original licensor. [3] However, this is not considered a form of consumer fraud unless the product is unlicensed or counterfeit. [14]

Unlicensed production is the utilization of foreign manufacturing technology without a license, achieved through industrial espionage or reverse engineering. [3] Products in high demand on the international market can be reproduced, based on the same or similar design, and branded in ways to make them indistinguishable from the original. [14] When copied and reproduced without a license, certain items are sometimes recopied in a similar manner by a third party. [3] The manufacturers responsible may also grant legitimately registered sub-licenses for their unlicensed products, profiting at the expense of the real intellectual property owner. [3] The quality of unlicensed goods varies greatly; the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has noted that while licensing companies often provide quality control measures, and there is some incentive for licensees to comply or risk legal action and the ensuing damage to their own profit, manufacturers who engage in unlicensed production are under no such obligations. [14]

Another method of circumventing the need for a license involves a manufacturer making slight modifications in the design or function of an existing product, before reproducing it. [3] The manufacturer could then argue that the resulting product is not an unlicensed copy, but a new product not subject to license. [3]

Also need to be noted that once the terms of the patent for the particular technology or invention has expired, any manufacturer could legally reverse-engineer and reproduce said technology without needing to negotiate license agreements with former patent holder. However, even after patent terms have lapsed some manufacturers do opt for licensed production, since such agreements also confer transfer of full manufacturing plans and expertise which may prove to be cheaper than acquiring those via reverse engineering.[ citation needed ]

Examples

Industrial products which have been built under license include:

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Motion Picture Patents Company</span> American films company

The Motion Picture Patents Company, founded in December 1908 and effectively terminated in 1915 after it lost a federal antitrust suit, was a trust of all the major US film companies and local foreign-branches, the leading film distributor and the biggest supplier of raw film stock, Eastman Kodak. The MPPC ended the domination of foreign films on US screens, standardized the manner in which films were distributed and exhibited within the US, and improved the quality of US motion pictures by internal competition. It also discouraged its members' entry into feature film production, and the use of outside financing, both to its members' eventual detriment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">License</span> Legal concept

A license or licence is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something.

Patria Plc is a Finnish provider of defence, security and aviation life-cycle support services. Patria is owned 50.1% by the Finnish government and 49.9% by Norwegian defense group Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace AS.

A royalty payment is a payment made by one party to another that owns a particular asset, for the right to ongoing use of that asset. Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation. A royalty interest is the right to collect a stream of future royalty payments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patria AMV</span> Finnish wheeled armoured personnel carrier

The Patria AMV is an 8×8 multi-role military vehicle produced by the Finnish defence industry company Patria.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial property</span> Intellectual property applied to industry

Industrial property is one of two subsets of intellectual property, it takes a range of forms, including patents for inventions, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, layout-designs of integrated circuits, commercial names and designations, geographical indications and protection against unfair competition. In some cases, aspects of intellectual creation, although present, are less clearly defined. The object of industrial property consists of signs conveying information, in particular to consumers, regarding products and services offered on the market. Protection is directed against unauthorized use of such signs that could mislead consumers, and against misleading practices in general.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have been acknowledged and protected in China since 1980. China has acceded to the major international conventions on protection of rights to intellectual property. Domestically, protection of intellectual property law has also been established by government legislation, administrative regulations, and decrees in the areas of trademark, copyright, and patent.

In patent law, a patent pool is a consortium of two or more companies agreeing to cross-license patents relating to a particular technology. The creation of a patent pool can save patentees and licensees time and money, and, in case of blocking patents, it may also be the only reasonable method for making the invention available to the public. Competition law issues are usually important when a large consortium is formed.

The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are said to be "exhausted," and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. However, under the repair and reconstruction doctrine, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee to do so.

An original design manufacturer is a company that designs and manufactures a product that is eventually rebranded by another firm for sale. Such companies allow the firm that owns or licenses the brand to produce products while having to engage in neither the detailed engineering work required to specify a product for manufacturing nor the organization and running of a factory. This is in contrast to using a contract manufacturer, where the contracting company would design the product and supply those specifications to the manufacturer.

Recaro Holding, as the parent company of the Recaro Group, owns the Recaro brand and the independently operating companies Recaro Aircraft Seating based in Schwäbisch Hall and Recaro eGaming based in Stuttgart, Germany. The business areas Recaro Automotive Seating and Recaro Kids are operated by licensees.

Brand licensing means renting or leasing of an intangible asset. It is a process of creating and managing contracts between the owner of a brand and a company or individual who wants to use the brand in association with a product, for an agreed period of time, within an agreed territory. Licensing is used by brand owners to extend a trademark or character onto products of a completely different nature.

Royalty rate assessment is a practical tool to gauge the impact of a royalty commitment in a technology contract on the business interests of the contracting parties. In this coverage, the terms 'royalty', 'royalty rate' and 'royalties' are used interchangeably.

General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U.S. 175 (1938), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1938. The decision upheld so-called field-of-use limitations in patent licenses: it held that the limitations were enforceable in a patent infringement suit in federal court against the licensee and those acting in concert with it—for example, a customer that knowingly buys a patented product from the licensee that is outside the scope of the license.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The decision made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that it is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to engage the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.

In international trade, foreign market entry modes are the ways in which a company can expand its services into a non-domestic market.

JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Nero, Inc., 797 F.3d 1039, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14402, is a 2015 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the rights of end users who purchase products subject to fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing under an industry-wide patent pool of standards-essential patents, and of suppliers of software to the end users. The Federal Circuit held that, where the patent holder had authorized sales to end users of optical discs compliant with the standard, which embodied the patents' essential features and were reasonably intended only to be used to practice the patents, the patent owner had no direct infringement claim against the end users without proof that the end-users were using unlicensed discs. The patent holder therefore had no claim for contributory infringement or induced infringement against a software company for selling software to the end users for use with the licensed discs. The decision is said to be an important one for clarifying the rights of downstream users and their suppliers in the context of patent pools and FRAND licensing.

United States v. United States Gypsum Co. was a patent–antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court decided, first, in 1948, that a patent licensing program that fixed prices of many licensees and regimented an entire industry violated the antitrust laws, and then, decided in 1950, after a remand, that appropriate relief in such cases did not extend so far as to permit licensees enjoying a compulsory, reasonable–royalty license to challenge the validity of the licensed patents. The Court also ruled, in obiter dicta, that the United States had standing to challenge the validity of patents when a patentee relied on the patents to justify its fixing prices. It held in this case, however, that the defendants violated the antitrust laws irrespective of whether the patents were valid, which made the validity issue irrelevant.

<i>United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co.</i>

United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 648 F.2d 642, is a patent-antitrust case in which the United States unsuccessfully tried to persuade the court that a patent and technology licensing agreement between major competitors in the highly concentrated heavy electrical equipment market—Westinghouse, Mitsubishi Electric (Melco) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)—which had the effect of territorially dividing world markets, violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. The Government had two principal theories of the case: (1) the arrangement is in unreasonable restraint of trade because its effect is to lessen competition substantially by precluding the Japanese defendant companies from bidding against Westinghouse on equipment procurements in the United States, when they are ready, willing, and able to do so; and (2) the arrangement is an agreement—explicit or tacit—to divide markets, which is illegal per se under § 1. Neither theory prevailed.

Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945), was a patent-antitrust case that the Government brought against a cartel in the glass container industry. The cartel, among other things, divided the fields of manufacture of glass containers, first, into blown glass and pressed glass, which was subdivided into: products made under the suction process, milk bottles, and fruit jars. The trial court found the cartel violative of the antitrust laws and the Supreme Court agreed that the market division and related conduct were illegal. The trial court required royalty-free licensing of present patents and reasonable royalty licensing of future patents. A divided Supreme Court reversed the requirement for royalty-free licensing as "confiscatory," but sustained the requirement for reasonable royalty licensing of the patents.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Bitzinger, Richard (2009). The Modern Defense Industry: Political, Economic, and Technological Issues. Santa Barbara: Praeger Security International (ABC-CLIO). pp. 313–315. ISBN   978-0275994754.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Maldifassi, Jose; Abetti, Pier (1994). Defense Industries in Latin American Countries. Westport: Praeger Publishers. pp. 116–119. ISBN   0-275-94729-7.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "Multiplying the Sources: Licensed and Unlicensed Military Production" (PDF). Geneva: Small Arms Survey. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 December 2016. Retrieved 21 September 2016.
  4. ↑ "Trade Registers". Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved 2015-11-03.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Billstein, Reinhold; Fings, Karola; Kugler, Anita; Levis, Nicholas (2009). Working for the Enemy: Ford, General Motors, and Forced Labor in Germany during the Second World War. New York: Berghahn Books. p. 64. ISBN   978-1845450137.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Seyoum, Belay (2008). Export-Import Theory, Practices, and Procedures. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge Books. pp. 245–236. ISBN   978-0789034205.
  7. ↑ Byrd, William (2010). "8". In Loayza, Norman; Keefer, Philip (eds.). Innocent Bystanders: Developing Countries and the War on Drugs. Washington DC: The World Bank. pp. 330–331. ISBN   978-0821380345.
  8. 1 2 3 Croft, Stuart; Dorman, Andrew; Rees, Wyn; Uttley, Matthew (2001). Britain and Defence 1945-2000: A Policy Re-evaluation. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge Books. pp. 118–120. ISBN   978-0582303775.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Landgren, Signe (June 1989). Embargo Disimplemented: South Africa's Military Industry (1989 ed.). Oxford University Press. pp.  83–88. ISBN   978-0-19-829127-5.
  10. ↑ Lorell, Mark (2009). Troubled Partnership: A History of U.S.-Japan Collaboration on the Fs-X Fighter. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. pp. 27–28. ISBN   978-1-56000-891-0.
  11. ↑ Correia, Paulo (2007). Verhoef, Grietjie (ed.). "Political relations between Portugal and South Africa from the end of the second World War until 1974". Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand. Archived from the original on 28 February 2015. Retrieved 27 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  12. 1 2 3 Bourne, Mike (2007). Arming Conflict: The Proliferation of Small Arms. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 66–67. ISBN   978-0230019331.
  13. 1 2 3 4 Bitzinger, Richard (2003). Towards a Brave New Arms Industry?. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge Books. pp. 17–21. ISBN   978-0198528357.
  14. 1 2 3 "Counterfeit products" (PDF). New York: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 December 2016. Retrieved 20 December 2016.
  15. 1 2 Smith, Chris (1994). India's Ad Hoc Arsenal: Direction Or Drift in Defence Policy?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 157–159. ISBN   978-0198291688.
  16. ↑ Tucker, Spencer (2001). Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 17–18. ISBN   978-0195135251.
  17. ↑ McGowen, Stanley (2005). Helicopters: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Publishers. p.  227. ISBN   978-1851094684.
  18. ↑ Pattillo, Donald (2000). Pushing the Envelope: The American Aircraft Industry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. p. 208. ISBN   978-0472086719.
  19. ↑ Moukambi, Victor (December 2008). Grundlingh, A.M. (ed.). Relations between South Africa and France with special reference to military matters, 1960-1990 (Thesis). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University. Retrieved 27 September 2016.
  20. 1 2 Mieczkowski, Bogdan (1980). East European Transport Regions and Modes: Systems and Modes. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 322–342. ISBN   978-94-009-8901-6.
  21. ↑ "Patria and Japan Steel Works Ltd. signed manufacturing license agreement for Patria AMV XP vehicles". Patria. 2023-09-01. Retrieved 2024-11-27.
  22. ↑ "Patria and Poland signed a new Rosomak manufacturing licence agreement". Patria. 2013-08-01. Retrieved 2024-11-27.
  23. ↑ ESD (2024-01-24). "The 6×6 armoured vehicle market" . Retrieved 2024-11-27.
  24. ↑ "Patria AMV | Full info on specifications, history, operators & variants". FightingVehicles.com. Retrieved 2024-11-27.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.