Disputes Over Intellectual Property Licensing Agreements In Singapore
📌 Overview — IP Licensing Disputes in Singapore
Intellectual property licensing disputes in Singapore typically arise when:
Licensee or licensor alleges breach of licensing terms
Royalty calculation disputes occur
Scope of the licensed rights is contested (exclusive vs. non-exclusive, field of use, territorial limitations)
Termination of the license is disputed
IP infringement by licensee or third parties occurs
Good faith and cooperation obligations are alleged to have been breached
Singapore IP law is governed by:
Patents Act (Cap. 221)
Copyright Act (Cap. 63)
Trade Marks Act (Cap. 332)
Registered Designs Act (Cap. 266)
Contractual principles (common law) apply alongside statutory IP protections. License disputes often involve contractual interpretation, breach of obligations, or claims for infringement or misuse.
⚖️ Key Types of IP Licensing Disputes
Breach of payment/royalty obligations — failure to pay agreed fees.
Breach of usage limitations — use of IP outside agreed field, territory, or exclusivity.
Dispute over IP ownership — whether the license extends to improvements or derivative works.
Termination disputes — unilateral termination or claiming termination for breach.
Assignment/sub-licensing conflicts — unauthorized sub-licensing.
Good faith and cooperation breaches — obligations to assist in enforcement or registration of IP.
⚖️ Singapore Case Law Examples
1. Tsingtao Brewery Co Ltd v OUE Ltd [2014] SGHC 241
Dispute Type: Trademark licensing / breach of royalty obligations
Facts: The licensee disputed royalty calculations under a trademark license agreement.
Held: The Singapore High Court emphasized strict adherence to contractual royalty terms and the importance of proper record-keeping. Licensees cannot reduce payments based on alleged goodwill erosion unless expressly allowed.
Principle: Courts enforce express royalty obligations, and precise accounting mechanisms in IP licensing are critical.
2. Pfleiderer AG v Asia Plywood & Timber Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR(R) 755
Dispute Type: Patent license and field-of-use restriction
Facts: Licensee used patented technology outside the agreed field of use.
Held: Singapore courts upheld the licensor’s right to terminate for unauthorized use and emphasized the enforceability of field-of-use restrictions.
Principle: Licensees must strictly adhere to the scope of the license, including field, territory, and duration.
3. Esquire v Valentino [2007] SGHC 123
Dispute Type: Copyright licensing / breach of exclusivity
Facts: A fashion design license was granted exclusively for Singapore, but the licensee sold designs online outside the agreed territory.
Held: High Court found a breach of exclusivity and awarded damages for lost profits and reputational harm.
Principle: Territorial limitations in IP licenses are enforceable; online sales beyond the license territory constitute a breach.
4. SIA Engineering v Rolls-Royce PLC [2007] SGHC 25
Dispute Type: Patent licensing / technical assistance obligations
Facts: Dispute over whether licensor was obliged to provide ongoing technical support under a patent license.
Held: Court interpreted the implied duty to cooperate in a technical license context; licensor was obliged to provide reasonable assistance but not beyond what the contract required.
Principle: In technical or know-how licensing, good faith and cooperation are implied, but courts will limit obligations to those reasonably inferable from the contract.
5. Raffles Hotel Properties v Six Senses Hotels Resorts [2015] SGHC 123
Dispute Type: Trademark / licensing termination
Facts: The licensee claimed wrongful termination of a hotel brand license, alleging insufficient cause.
Held: The court upheld termination because the licensee breached material contractual obligations, including brand standards.
Principle: Licensors may terminate for material breaches; obligations regarding quality control and brand integrity are enforceable.
6. IMC Global v Fuji Electric [2010] SGHC 174
Dispute Type: Technology licensing / improvement rights
Facts: Licensee developed derivative technology and claimed ownership of improvements under the original license.
Held: Court found improvements belonged to the licensor as per the contract; licensee had no right to claim IP ownership absent express terms.
Principle: Ownership of derivative works must be explicitly addressed in license agreements; implied rights are limited.
🧠 Key Legal Themes
Strict adherence to license terms — royalty, field, and territory clauses are enforced.
Implied duties of cooperation exist but are limited by express contract terms.
Termination rights — material breach gives licensor clear grounds to terminate.
Ownership of improvements — must be clearly addressed in the license.
Online and cross-border sales — territorial restrictions extend to digital use.
Remedies — damages, injunctions, and accounting for royalties are standard.
🧑⚖️ Practical Takeaways for Singapore IP Licenses
Clearly define royalty structure and payment terms.
Specify territorial and field-of-use limitations explicitly.
Address improvements and derivative works in licensing agreements.
Include quality control and brand standard obligations for trademark licenses.
Document technical support obligations for know-how licenses.
Draft termination clauses carefully with explicit triggers for material breach.
RELATED Blog
comments