Patent Licensing

Home / Practices / Patent Licensing
All practices
Intellectual Property and TechnologyPatent

Patent licensing turns your patents into revenue or access, and we structure and negotiate licenses, cross-licenses, and settlements that hit your commercial goals while protecting your core interests on either side of the deal.

A patent license lets you earn from what you invented or get access to technology you need, and the terms decide whether the deal actually works. Licensing sits at the center of plenty of business models, from technology companies that monetize instead of manufacturing to research institutions commercializing what their labs produce. We structure patent license agreements that achieve your commercial objectives and protect your core interests whether you are the licensor collecting royalties or the licensee buying freedom to build.

Defining The License Grant

A patent license conveys rights to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and import the invention, and the grant has to spell out exactly which of those rights move and on what patents. Scope provisions name the included patents and often set a mechanism for adding future ones. Field-of-use limits confine activity to specific applications, territorial terms set geography, and exclusivity decides whether the licensor can grant the same rights elsewhere or practice the patents itself. Sublicense rights shape the licensee's flexibility. Each choice drives both value and legal consequence.

Structuring Compensation

How you get paid varies enormously by context. Running royalties on sales are common, with rates that swing by industry, from low single-digit percentages in software to twenty percent or more in pharmaceuticals. Per-unit royalties simplify hard-to-track sales, fixed payments give certainty for cross-licenses or freedom-to-operate deals, and milestone payments tie money to development or launch. Minimums guarantee a floor regardless of licensee performance, often alongside an upfront. We build compensation structures that match the deal economics and stay practical to administer.

Improvements And Grant-Backs

Real-world use of licensed technology always produces improvements, and grant-back provisions decide who owns them. Licensors often want rights to a licensee's improvements to keep the portfolio strong, but push too hard and you blunt the licensee's incentive to invest in development at all. The definition of an improvement controls what falls in scope, and grant-back terms range from a non-exclusive license up to outright assignment. We negotiate this balance so the deal rewards both sides for what they bring.

Risk Allocation And Warranties

Licenses allocate risk through representations, warranties, and indemnification. Licensors typically warrant ownership and the right to grant, may negotiate hard over any non-infringement warranty, and rarely warrant validity given the inherent uncertainty. Licensees usually warrant lawful use and compliance with the agreement. Indemnification provisions decide who pays when a warranty fails or a third party sues. We draft risk allocation that balances the protection each side needs against commercial reality and what is actually insurable.

Settlements, SEPs, And Cross-Licenses

Many licenses come out of litigation, where settlement terms ride on courtroom leverage and often bundle claim releases, covenants not to sue, and field or term restrictions. Standards-essential patents add FRAND commitments that constrain terms but leave real room to negotiate, an area where disputes increasingly reach court. Cross-licenses swap rights between parties with balancing payments, and patent pools aggregate complementary patents for joint licensing, both raising antitrust issues. We structure settlements, SEP licenses, and pool arrangements that resolve the fight and land the right commercial outcome.

Frequently asked questions

The common structures are running royalties tied to a percentage of sales, a one-time lump sum, or a hybrid with an upfront payment plus ongoing royalties. Which one fits depends on the business model on each side and how the negotiation shakes out.

Rates vary a lot by industry and technology, often landing somewhere in the low single digits to high single digits for mature fields and higher for genuinely novel technology. The most reliable way to support a rate is to point to comparable licenses for similar technology.

An exclusive license gives the rights to a single licensee, and typically the patent owner cannot even practice the patent within that scope. A non-exclusive license lets the owner license the same rights to others, so it is usually cheaper and less restrictive.

Only if the agreement says so. Sublicensing rights are not automatic, so if the licensee's model depends on them, they must be granted expressly. Owners often allow it but require approval of sublicensees or reporting so they keep visibility into who is using the patent.

That is handled by an improvements clause, which spells out who owns and who can use enhancements developed during the term. Grant-back provisions, where the licensee licenses its improvements back to the owner, need careful drafting because overreaching grant-backs can raise antitrust concerns.

A well-drafted license says so up front. Depending on what you negotiate, invalidity can trigger termination, reduce the royalty, or let the license continue under whatever patent coverage remains. Leaving this silent is what causes fights later.

Document products

Related document products

Order attorney-drafted documents related to this practice.

Browse all products

Bring our patent licensing team to your next matter.

Get in touch