JP Morgan Chase Bank v. DataTreasury Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
823 F.3d 1006 (2016)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
A license agreement between JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) (plaintiff) and DataTreasury Corporation (Data) (defendant) granted Chase unlimited use of Data’s patented check-processing technology. The agreement was the result of a settlement between Chase and Data in prior litigation in which Data alleged that Chase infringed its patents. Under the agreement, Chase paid Data $70 million in installments that the agreement expressly treated as a lump-sum payment and not a running royalty. Thus, Chase was obligated to pay the entire $70 million royalty from the outset of the agreement and could not stop paying the installments even if Chase stopped using Data’s patents. The agreement also granted Chase most-favored-licensee status. Specifically, if Data licensed the patents to any other entity, Chase was entitled to the benefit of any more favorable terms granted to the other licensee. The most-favored-licensee provision also required Data to notify Chase upon the execution of any more favorable license. Data subsequently licensed the patents to a lower-volume licensee at a much lower lump-sum price and did not timely notify Chase under the terms of the license agreement. Chase sued Data for breach of contract, and the district court entered judgment in favor of Chase. Data appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.