Litigators familiar with pharmaceutical collaboration and merger agreements have surely run into the ubiquitous “efforts” clause. Whether couched in terms of “best efforts,” “reasonable efforts,” “commercially reasonable efforts,” or some other iteration, a licensee or purchaser of technology typically has some obligation to develop and market the licensor-seller’s technology. These clauses become critical where the agreement contains precise milestone events with lucrative payouts, but only a vague statement that the licensee should use reasonable efforts to achieve those milestones.

Without further elaboration or definition in the agreement, exactly what “best efforts” requires, if it requires anything at all, remains a mystery to even the most seasoned practitioners and judges, and state laws are fragmented. For instance, Illinois courts have held that without any actual requirements or explication, such clauses are unenforceable. See Clever Ideas, Inc. v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 2003 WL 21982141 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2003) (in Illinois, “a simple promise to use ‘best efforts’ is unenforceable if no criteria exist by which to measure the effort.”).

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]