In this case, the defendant argued that there was a reason for quashing the patent and that this could be considered a loophole (a patent licensing agreement is a value contract and can be considered a guarantee of default). Presumably, the court ruled as follows, in accordance with the above requirements: an Illinois District Court ruled that a patent license agreement violation does not automatically give rise to patent infringement claims. Whether the infringement results in patent infringements or contractual rights depends instead on the allegedly violated clause and whether the clause is a condition of the licence or merely a contractual undertaking. The former may result in a patent infringement, while the latter may result in a breach of the right to contract. The lawyer can also analyze the remedies that would bring the best relief to his client in the event of a dispute. This analysis should include a comparison between the discharge granted to IP claims and the discharge allowing the breach of contract. Based on differences, a strategy can be developed to maximize a client`s protection in many circumstances. When drafting agreements, the parties should consider whether certain provisions are considered to be conditions of licence or mere contractual obligations and use appropriate language in the specific provisions and throughout the agreement. The language used and the importance of these provisions may determine at a later date whether a violation of these provisions should be resolved in the context of infringement or infringement claims. Similarly, in a precedent [Tokyo District Court of August 27, 1998 (1994 (Wa) No. 12070]), the Tokyo District Court found that there was no liability for the payment of the royalty if a patent could not be exploited or did not have the burden of use under a contract. This is what the IP High Court has also found in this regard in this case.

Therefore, if the patent had not been dealt with in the licensing agreement, it would have been possible that the patent could have been considered a default without liability for the payment of the royalty and that security claims could have been invoked against defects. Indeed, the patent remained effective and the defendant is aware of patents and could thus have identified the reason for the cancellation of the patent.