Ipr In Joint Ownership Of Ip.
IPR in Joint Ownership of Intellectual Property
1. Introduction
Joint ownership of IP arises when two or more individuals or entities contribute to the creation of a work or invention and are recognized as co-owners under the law. Joint ownership is common in:
Research collaborations between universities or companies
Co-authored literary or artistic works
Software developed by multiple programmers
Jointly developed patents in R&D projects
Corporate joint ventures for product innovations
Joint ownership creates unique rights and responsibilities, including:
Sharing profits and licensing rights
Decision-making for commercialization
Liability for infringement
Protection of moral rights (for copyrightable works)
2. Legal Framework for Joint Ownership
Copyright (India: Copyright Act, 1957, Sec. 2(f), 17, 31)
Co-authors are joint owners unless otherwise agreed.
Each owner can exploit the work, but usually must account to other co-owners for profits.
Patent (India: Patents Act, 1970, Sec. 2(1)(j), 48, 49)
Each co-inventor is a joint owner of the patent.
Rights to exploit the patent may require consent of all owners unless otherwise agreed.
Trademarks & Designs
Joint ownership is allowed; each owner can license or assign with consent of others.
Agreements
Co-ownership can be modified via contracts, determining licensing, royalties, and commercialization rights.
3. Key Issues in Joint Ownership
Exploitation Rights – Can one owner license or sell without the other’s consent?
Revenue Sharing – Profits and royalties must usually be shared unless contract specifies otherwise.
Infringement Liability – Co-owners may be jointly liable for infringement or misuse.
Disputes – Conflicts arise over commercialization, licensing, or attribution.
Termination & Assignment – Rights transfer or termination must comply with joint ownership rules.
4. Important Case Laws on Joint Ownership of IP
Case 1: University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. (1916, UK)
Issue: Copyright in jointly authored educational works.
Facts:
University Tutorial Press published examination papers derived from University authors.
Dispute arose regarding copyright ownership and reproduction rights.
Judgment:
Court recognized that joint authors of a literary work are co-owners.
Each co-author has rights to reproduce, but must account to other authors for profits.
Principle:
Co-authorship leads to joint copyright ownership, requiring mutual consent for commercial exploitation.
Case 2: Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Sprint Communications Co. (USA, 1993)
Issue: Joint ownership of patent inventions.
Facts:
Multiple engineers co-invented a telecommunications patent.
Dispute arose over licensing rights to third parties.
Judgment:
Court held that joint owners of a patent can exploit it independently, but must share royalties with other co-owners unless contract limits rights.
Principle:
Patent law allows joint owners to license independently, with accounting obligations to other co-owners.
Case 3: Monsanto Technology LLC v. Syngenta Seeds Ltd. (India, 2010)
Issue: Joint ownership and licensing of biotech patents.
Facts:
Monsanto and a research institute jointly developed genetically modified seeds.
Dispute arose over commercialization rights.
Judgment:
Court emphasized joint patent ownership requires consent for licensing or assignment, unless explicitly agreed.
Principle:
Co-ownership in patents does not automatically grant unilateral exploitation rights. Contracts are key.
Case 4: Baishideng Publishing Group v. Elsevier (2014, USA)
Issue: Joint copyright in academic publications.
Facts:
Multiple authors collaborated on a medical research article.
Baishideng published without proper attribution to all authors.
Judgment:
Court upheld that all co-authors are joint owners of copyright, and one co-author cannot assign or license without accounting to others.
Principle:
Joint ownership requires mutual consent for assignments and exploitation.
Case 5: Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc. (USA, 2012)
Issue: Patent co-ownership and licensing disputes.
Facts:
Ericsson and co-inventors filed patents for networking technology.
One co-owner licensed the patent to D-Link without consent.
Judgment:
Court ruled that unilateral licensing by one co-owner violated co-ownership principles, requiring accounting and possible injunction.
Principle:
Patent co-owners cannot infringe contractual or statutory rights of other owners in licensing.
Case 6: Gorman v. Doll (2000, USA)
Issue: Joint authorship in software development.
Facts:
Two programmers collaborated on software. Dispute arose over commercialization and distribution.
Judgment:
Court recognized joint authorship, each having equal rights to exploit the software.
Obligation to share profits or license with accounting upheld.
Principle:
Software is treated like literary work under copyright, requiring consent for commercial use among co-owners.
Case 7: Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (Patent, 2012)
Issue: Joint patent ownership in pharmaceuticals.
Facts:
Bayer and Indian research partners jointly developed a drug patent.
Dispute arose over licensing to generic manufacturers.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that joint patent owners must agree on licensing terms, but co-owners can negotiate mutually beneficial deals.
Principle:
Co-ownership requires collaboration in decision-making and cannot be unilaterally overridden.
5. Comparative Principles from Cases
| Case | IP Type | Key Principle on Joint Ownership |
|---|---|---|
| University of London Press | Copyright | Co-authors share rights, must account for profits |
| Northern Telecom v. Sprint | Patent | Co-owners can exploit, must share royalties |
| Monsanto v. Syngenta | Patent | Consent needed for licensing; agreements matter |
| Baishideng v. Elsevier | Copyright | Cannot assign without other co-authors' consent |
| Ericsson v. D-Link | Patent | Unilateral licensing violates co-ownership rights |
| Gorman v. Doll | Software/Copyright | Equal rights, profit-sharing required |
| Bayer v. Union of India | Patent | Collaboration required for commercialization |
6. Key Takeaways
Joint ownership arises automatically when multiple parties contribute significantly to a work or invention.
Rights and obligations differ for copyright vs patents:
Copyright – Each co-owner can exploit but must account for profits.
Patent – Exploitation may require consent of all owners unless contract specifies otherwise.
Agreements/contracts are crucial to define:
Licensing rights
Profit sharing
Assignment or transfer
Dispute resolution
Disputes often arise due to:
Unilateral licensing
Profit-sharing conflicts
Moral rights (for copyright)
Courts globally recognize joint ownership principles to balance rights, consent, and economic interests.
RELATED Blog
comments