Summary
The Licensing Executives Society (LES) held its annual meeting this week in Boston, bringing together intellectual property (IP) licensing professionals across disciplines and industries—including academics, attorneys, industry leaders, and service providers from U.S. and global markets.
Programs covered a range of topics and recent trends shaping the IP Licensing environment, from licensing in periods of economic uncertainty to the evolving use of artificial intelligence (AI), and more. Ballard Spahr’s IP Licensing Team was excited to attend the LES Annual Meeting and its stimulating and informative sessions, and provide key takeaways below. Read more about each at the link.
The Upshot
- During periods of uncertainty, licensing deals have shown to be a valuable alternative to the outright sale or purchase of an asset—particularly in the life sciences sector, where asset value is clarified over time through regulatory and clinical milestones.
- Ending a licensing relationship is as important as entering one. Dispute resolution and termination rights were common topics.
- AI remains a dominant topic that continues to evolve. Despite broader adoption, significant legal uncertainties remain, particularly regarding IP ownership of AI-generated works and risk allocation for AI products and services.
Ballard Spahr’s IP Licensing Team was excited to attend the Licensing Executives Society (LES) Annual Meeting’s stimulating and informative sessions and provide key takeaways below.
1. Licensing deals have shown to be a valuable alternative to the sale/purchase of an asset outright during periods of uncertainty.
Licensing deals continue to shape the landscape across industries by fostering new partnerships and expanding existing relationships. In today’s climate of uncertain federal policy, fluctuating interest rates, and limited capital, licensing is often a more attractive alternative to outright asset sales. For licensors, licensing can provide access to non-dilutive capital through upfront and milestone payments. For licensees, it offers a less risky, staged investment, which is particularly valuable in the life sciences sector, where asset value is clarified over time through regulatory and clinical milestones.
Global licensing activity is also increasing, with more deals originating in China as its life sciences and AI sectors expand. Additionally, tariffs are influencing trade flows, prompting companies to build tariff-proof supply chains and seek IP rights in new markets.
2. Ending a licensing relationship is as important as entering one.
Dispute resolution and termination rights were common topics across the events. In nearly all licensing relationships, the relationship ultimately comes to an end. The relationship might end naturally at the end of a fixed term or upon completion of a project. Or the relationship might end by mutual agreement if the parties fail to reach certain milestones, such as failure to obtain regulatory approval or unfavorable clinical trial results. The relationship could also end as the result of a dispute.
At the outset of a new relationship, parties should carefully define when they can end the relationship, the rights triggered, and the procedures for exercising such rights. The triggers vary by deal type and size and may include for-cause or without-cause triggers. When winding down a relationship, the parties will typically need to consider any final payment obligations, returning materials and/or confidential information, the continued use of intellectual property (especially if any rights have been granted to a sublicensee, any improvements have been created, or any intellectual property is jointly owned), and whether any obligations need to survive termination.
Unfortunately, relationships can also end with disputes. With a more globalized licensing environment, the type of procedures and governing law can be more heavily negotiated. Arbitration might be a valuable option in global licensing deals because many jurisdictions will enforce arbitration awards while judgments from foreign courts may not be enforceable. Additionally, venue needs to be reasonable. Recent decisions suggest that asymmetrical venue clauses may face enforceability challenges. For example, courts may decline to enforce a venue clause that allows one party to litigate anywhere while limiting the other to a single, inconvenient forum. As always, parties should consult local counsel to ensure enforceability of agreement terms in relevant jurisdictions.
3. Artificial intelligence (AI) is still dominant but evolving.
Continuing the trend form last year’s annual meeting, artificial intelligence was a dominant topic of discussion. Adoption of AI tools is more pervasive in 2025, and the tools are becoming more tailored to specific use cases. As service providers look to improve performance on specialized tasks, tailored data sets with careful fine tuning have replaced undifferentiated large data sets. As a result, many more companies are integrating AI tools and processes (often with guardrails).
Despite broader adoption, significant legal uncertainties remain, particularly regarding IP ownership of AI-generated works and risk allocation for AI products and services. Without industry standards, parties must carefully negotiate representations, warranties, indemnities, and insurance provisions. Overly broad prohibitions on AI use, such as blanket bans, may be impractical given AI components in everyday tools. For example, simple web or email inbox searches could run afoul of such a ban. Parties should consider nuanced, well-defined restrictions with appropriate guardrails.
[View source.]
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
