Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

In the case of the ownership of intellectual property (IP) developed by a supplier as part of a service agreement with a customer, should the traditional position that the customer should own all developed IP always be the position agreed upon by the parties?

Use restrictions in software as a service (SaaS) agreements work in tandem with the scope of access and use rights provisions to clarify the scope of a user’s right to use a SaaS solution. These restrictions will be extremely important to the SaaS provider, however, consideration of such restrictions is also paramount for the users of the SaaS solution.

An essential feature for customers in outsourcing software licensing and arrangements is the provision of robust protection against any software that could embed and distribute malware. To address these concerns, the inclusion of a no-virus warranty has become a common expectation on customers’ side.

When a contracting party decides that the counterparty is worth an exclusive commitment, such a decision often rests on some minimum expectations and basic assumptions. But, in light of Murphy’s law, it may be worthwhile to put the proposed union through a stress test.

How are intellectual property (IP) and data rights allocated when a particular dataset is a key to unlocking a powerful new artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model or use case? To find a balance, contracting parties may end up trading a black box for Pandora’s box.

A significant number of legacy software solutions are now incorporating generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), and most new software solutions have some form of GenAI capabilities. This is true across the majority of, if not all, industries and, as such, it is not surprising that we are seeing a large increase in GenAI-related queries from businesses that use, or are procuring, software.

In part one, we discussed key considerations for the possible inclusion of commercial contract provisions affording a party with excusal/relief from liability for nonperformance of an obligation that it otherwise would have been required to perform under the agreement (relief provision).

Commercial contract provisions affording a party with an excuse from performance can take varying shapes and sizes, but they all serve the purpose of relieving the party from liability for nonperformance of an obligation that it otherwise would have been required to perform under the agreement.

In the rapidly evolving world of software licensing and distribution, many vendors (and therefore customers) are considering a shift from traditional customer-hosted software solutions to Software as a Service (SaaS) platforms, which are hosted by the vendor and then accessed by the customer’s users remotely. This transition is not merely an infrastructure change, and may also involve significant modifications to business operations and legal agreements. Here are some key considerations for businesses planning to make this shift.

In Part 1, we discussed how companies rely on social media influencers to promote their products and services online, and certain items to consider when drafting an influencer agreement. In this Part 2 blog post, we’ll focus on drafting from the influencer’s side of the table.