Another big part of the thought. What interested me was that you would include in the licensing agreements for universities a provision that the licensee would compensate the university for the rights of the licensee`s clients and others – I often see him (I work for a productive sponsor of university research), and I always oppose it. It is usually very nebulous, covering every loss suffered by the university as a result of any use of IP/Arising (etc) by us. If we could agree, I would limit it to our use – in violation of the license/agreement – (and we would give the enforcement of the rights ourselves). If they are left as losses resulting from use (just and inappropriate), they will expand for example. B to the rights of third parties to which the university has granted rights contrary to the rights conferred upon us. Similarly, it tends to eliminate any incentive for the university to act fairly and correctly. The principle that the commercial sponsor/licensee is responsible for its own actions is always accepted (i.e. we do not ask the university to guarantee or compensate), but we will not compensate any compensation for losses resulting from our proper use. It is always controversial, even though I recently had to deal with an American university that liked to drop its version of this allowance, provided that we maintain a contractual provision stipulating that each party is responsible for its own actions and omissions (which surprised me – precisely in an American contract!) “The supplier provides customers with all claims and direct requirements, indirect or consecutive liabilities (including loss of earnings, loss of activity, depletion of value and similar losses), costs, procedures, damages and expenses (including legal and other fees and expenses) that have been granted or paid by the customer as a result of an alleged or actual violation of third party intellectual property rights or other rights resulting from the use or provision of services (including services).

The scope and nature of such compensation varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some countries, compensation may be invoked by such a third party in the context of legal proceedings, which would allow the party providing the compensation to place itself in the party`s position for the benefit of compensation. In other countries, the law of civil procedure does not provide for this right (or obligation) of substitution, but obliges the compensated to continue the legal proceedings, regardless of his right of appeal to the compensated party. The customer frees the supplier and each of its partners and associates (an “compensated person”) from any act, rights, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, costs and expenses they suffer or may suffer in a jurisdiction, or that are related, directly or indirectly, and to the extent that the advisory services or the role of an compensated person are related or likely to result, except, in all cases, to the extent that this results from a breach by the supplier of the terms of the agreement or fraud, negligence or deliberate delay of a person unharmed or a substantial violation of a right applicable to that person by such a person compensated.