When granting or granting a licence under intellectual property rights, parties must consider the degree of exclusivity granted as soon as possible. It follows that it would be wise to be clearer. You can do this using it exclusively or only a defined term. See A-Z guide to the boilerplate platform and trade clauses 247, 250 (2d ed. 2006). Or you can express the desired meaning directly in the language of authorization. See Milgrim on licensing s 15.33 (indicating that, to express the concept of a single licence, “the terminology usually used by the notice rapporteur is `exclusive license`, but subject to an explicit reservation of the right of continuous use”). So I`m not sure what the analysis in Lawyers Weekly is about; I think it is not contradictory and it raises a question where the word works best, however simple and exclusive it may be, but only another example of old redundancy, for which the simplest solution is to break the sole. Instead of exclusive and exclusive remedies, we could only say remedies. For the purposes of a court decision, exclusive jurisdiction instead of exclusive and exclusive jurisdiction.
Or a larger transaction might be necessary: instead of saying that all the interests of something are the exclusive property of Acme, you say that Acme owns all these interests. And to say that Widgetco can do something with its unique and exclusive option raises questions comparable to those raised at its discretion (see x.x) and from time to time (both discussed in MSCD). Motivating a distributor to work hard to sell your products is difficult; it takes time and effort on both sides. But what most life sciences providers don`t know is that the agreement they sign with a distributor can set the tone for a relationship. The titles or titles that precede the text of the sections and subsections are inserted exclusively to approve the reference and do not constitute a part of this agreement and do not affect the meaning, structure or effect of this agreement. Both parties participated in the negotiations and the development of this agreement. This agreement is written in English and can only be translated into another language for informational purposes. In the event of ambiguity or a question of intent or interpretation, the English version of this contract is a priority and the agreement must be interpreted as being drafted by both parties and there is no presumption or burden of proof that favours or favours either party because of the authorship of one of the provisions of this agreement. I wrote about the single and exclusive sentence in this 2010 article on AdamsDrafting. Last April, Mark Anderson wrote about this in this post on IP Draughts. At the risk of oververkill, I would like to take another breach on the subject now. All distribution agreements are potentially contrary to EU competition law and UK competition law.