UC Law Business Journal
Abstract
Introduced in 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overhauled the Indian insolvency regime. Five years young, the Code is now in the process of adopting the Cross-Border insolvency, which was omitted from its original mandate. In 2018, a legislatively appointed committee suggested that the Code should adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency. However, the Committee overlooked a crucial jurisprudential guideline, which colored the interpretation of the Model Law. It was a crossborder insolvency dispute between American and German regimes. An American bankruptcy court subjected to the German administration of American Intellectual Property assets to protection exclusively available within the American Bankruptcy Code. This paper studies the American judicial decisions in the Samsung v. Jaffe dispute to identify and underline the importance of its directive. The study reveals that there is virtually no guidance on how an intellectual property license is treated within the Indian insolvency regime. The authors underline the importance of such guidance considering the proposed adoption of the Model Law and suggest legislative inquiry in the issue.
Recommended Citation
M P Ram Mohan and Aditya Gupta,
Intellectual Property licenses in cross-border insolvency: Lessons from In Re Qimonda,
18 Hastings Bus. L.J. 181
(2022).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol18/iss2/4