Technology: Software licensors must take caution when licensing outside the U.S.
When expanding into international markets, U.S.-based software licensors should always consider whether their software license agreements are enforceable in the countries in which the licensed software is being used.
October 05, 2012 at 05:00 AM
11 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When expanding into international markets, U.S.-based software licensors should always consider whether their software license agreements are enforceable in the countries in which the licensed software is being used. This is critical in order to protect a company's valuable intellectual property rights. While this may seem like a straightforward issue to address, it can prove challenging when navigating the key differences among the legal frameworks of different countries.
In the first article of this two-part series, we analyzed the importance of a U.S. software supplier's choice of law to govern the license agreement when doing business in the European Union (EU) and, in particular, Germany. Choice of law is only one of myriad legal issues for a U.S. supplier to consider. Using Germany again as an example, this article will outline additional important issues to consider when crafting software license agreements enforceable in the EU. This article will focus on freedom of contract, use of the English language and certain individual country issues.
Freedom of Contract
When drafting a license agreement, it is important to understand whether consumers and businesses in a given country have the general freedom to choose with whom to contract, whether to contract and on which terms to contract.
As a general rule, European courts recognize the “freedom of contract” doctrine, under which contracting parties are generally free to make any commercial agreement. Nevertheless, German law provides that there are certain situations in which this doctrine will not be recognized. These include contracts against public policy, contracts that qualify as “standard terms and conditions” and contracts that are subject to consumer protection laws.
As this relates to software license agreements, mandatory copyright provisions in the EU and in national legislation must also be considered. This includes the right of a licensee to make a single back-up copy of the software; to observe, study, or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles defining the software program; and to reverse-engineer the software under certain conditions.
And there's more. The German rules regarding the use of “standard terms and conditions” will apply to all license agreements if the contractual terms are preprinted for a multitude of user contracts and are not individually negotiated. To be enforceable in a German court, the “standard terms and conditions” must be effectively incorporated into a contract.
If the license agreement qualifies as “standard terms and conditions” under German law, there are stringent minimal requirements for the terms and conditions depending on whether the parties' relationship is a business-to-consumer (B2C) or business-to-business (B2B) licensing scenario. In fact, the requirements are even stricter in the B2C scenario. At a minimum, these requirements impose stricter controls over the terms and conditions of such agreements than would be permitted in individually negotiated license agreements.
Enforceability of English Language
A logical question: Can an English-language license agreement be enforced in a non-English-speaking country as drafted, or would it need to be translated? Assuming both parties have negotiated and signed the agreement, it will generally be enforceable. But of course, there are always exceptions. “Standard terms and conditions” that are written in a different language from the language of the contract, and which are not understandable by a licensor or licensee, are generally not valid. Nevertheless, it is common to draft software license agreements in English, and it is generally considered valid to also use English-language “standard terms and conditions” between commercial licensors and licensees. Such agreements are frequently utsed in Germany without enforceability challenges.
There is recent legal precedent in Germany to support a position that English-language B2B software licenses are enforceable contracts. In the event of a B2C licensing scenario, a company must also consider how the consumer protection laws might apply to an agreement or to English-language terms and conditions in a non-English-speaking country.
Country-Specific Legal Structures
When dealing with a new country, companies should always consider the particular—and potentially significant—differences with U.S. law. For example, one substantial difference between license agreements in Germany and the U.S. (and one which U.S. software licensors and attorneys may not be aware of) is that under German law there is no pure concept of a “license” as a type of contract. For a license agreement to be enforceable, the parties must mutually agree upon the type of contract and the nature of the rights granted in the software. German courts have tried to “fit” license agreements into a specific type of contract depending on what they believe represents the intent of the contracting parties. Under the German Civil Code, a license agreement must fit into one of four types of contracts: a “sales contract,” a “lease contract,” a “works contract” or a “services contract.”
To determine a contract “fit,” the contract is analyzed as to whether it is standard (packaged/off-the-shelf) or custom software. Standard software licensed for an indefinite duration and for a one-time payment will be treated as licensed pursuant to a “sales contract” (Kaufvertrag). However, standard software licensed for a specified term will be treated as licensed pursuant to a lease contract (Mietvertrag). Custom software developed for use by the licensee for an indefinite duration will be deemed subject to a works contract (Werkvertrag) or services contract (Bedieunsgvertrag).
So, as practical advice, a lawyer drafting a software license agreement for use in Germany should advise his or her client to expressly identify which of the four types of contracts the parties intend. Furthermore, a lawyer drafting an agreement in a different country should be sure to confirm that the agreement addresses all the necessary local law issues.
Opportunities Abound
Expanding software and technology opportunities in Europe are presenting U.S. software suppliers with abundant prospects for market-share growth. To help ensure expansion with appropriate asset protections, suppliers should consider engaging competent local counsel to assist with the unique aspects of these often complex transactions.
When expanding into international markets, U.S.-based software licensors should always consider whether their software license agreements are enforceable in the countries in which the licensed software is being used. This is critical in order to protect a company's valuable intellectual property rights. While this may seem like a straightforward issue to address, it can prove challenging when navigating the key differences among the legal frameworks of different countries.
In the first article of this two-part series, we analyzed the importance of a U.S. software supplier's choice of law to govern the license agreement when doing business in the European Union (EU) and, in particular, Germany. Choice of law is only one of myriad legal issues for a U.S. supplier to consider. Using Germany again as an example, this article will outline additional important issues to consider when crafting software license agreements enforceable in the EU. This article will focus on freedom of contract, use of the English language and certain individual country issues.
Freedom of Contract
When drafting a license agreement, it is important to understand whether consumers and businesses in a given country have the general freedom to choose with whom to contract, whether to contract and on which terms to contract.
As a general rule, European courts recognize the “freedom of contract” doctrine, under which contracting parties are generally free to make any commercial agreement. Nevertheless, German law provides that there are certain situations in which this doctrine will not be recognized. These include contracts against public policy, contracts that qualify as “standard terms and conditions” and contracts that are subject to consumer protection laws.
As this relates to software license agreements, mandatory copyright provisions in the EU and in national legislation must also be considered. This includes the right of a licensee to make a single back-up copy of the software; to observe, study, or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles defining the software program; and to reverse-engineer the software under certain conditions.
And there's more. The German rules regarding the use of “standard terms and conditions” will apply to all license agreements if the contractual terms are preprinted for a multitude of user contracts and are not individually negotiated. To be enforceable in a German court, the “standard terms and conditions” must be effectively incorporated into a contract.
If the license agreement qualifies as “standard terms and conditions” under German law, there are stringent minimal requirements for the terms and conditions depending on whether the parties' relationship is a business-to-consumer (B2C) or business-to-business (B2B) licensing scenario. In fact, the requirements are even stricter in the B2C scenario. At a minimum, these requirements impose stricter controls over the terms and conditions of such agreements than would be permitted in individually negotiated license agreements.
Enforceability of English Language
A logical question: Can an English-language license agreement be enforced in a non-English-speaking country as drafted, or would it need to be translated? Assuming both parties have negotiated and signed the agreement, it will generally be enforceable. But of course, there are always exceptions. “Standard terms and conditions” that are written in a different language from the language of the contract, and which are not understandable by a licensor or licensee, are generally not valid. Nevertheless, it is common to draft software license agreements in English, and it is generally considered valid to also use English-language “standard terms and conditions” between commercial licensors and licensees. Such agreements are frequently utsed in Germany without enforceability challenges.
There is recent legal precedent in Germany to support a position that English-language B2B software licenses are enforceable contracts. In the event of a B2C licensing scenario, a company must also consider how the consumer protection laws might apply to an agreement or to English-language terms and conditions in a non-English-speaking country.
Country-Specific Legal Structures
When dealing with a new country, companies should always consider the particular—and potentially significant—differences with U.S. law. For example, one substantial difference between license agreements in Germany and the U.S. (and one which U.S. software licensors and attorneys may not be aware of) is that under German law there is no pure concept of a “license” as a type of contract. For a license agreement to be enforceable, the parties must mutually agree upon the type of contract and the nature of the rights granted in the software. German courts have tried to “fit” license agreements into a specific type of contract depending on what they believe represents the intent of the contracting parties. Under the German Civil Code, a license agreement must fit into one of four types of contracts: a “sales contract,” a “lease contract,” a “works contract” or a “services contract.”
To determine a contract “fit,” the contract is analyzed as to whether it is standard (packaged/off-the-shelf) or custom software. Standard software licensed for an indefinite duration and for a one-time payment will be treated as licensed pursuant to a “sales contract” (Kaufvertrag). However, standard software licensed for a specified term will be treated as licensed pursuant to a lease contract (Mietvertrag). Custom software developed for use by the licensee for an indefinite duration will be deemed subject to a works contract (Werkvertrag) or services contract (Bedieunsgvertrag).
So, as practical advice, a lawyer drafting a software license agreement for use in Germany should advise his or her client to expressly identify which of the four types of contracts the parties intend. Furthermore, a lawyer drafting an agreement in a different country should be sure to confirm that the agreement addresses all the necessary local law issues.
Opportunities Abound
Expanding software and technology opportunities in Europe are presenting U.S. software suppliers with abundant prospects for market-share growth. To help ensure expansion with appropriate asset protections, suppliers should consider engaging competent local counsel to assist with the unique aspects of these often complex transactions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250