In the case at hand, Future Production had manufactured and sold so-called automatic disconnect systems ("ADS") for oil rigs. The ADS disconnects the rig in case of a drift-off and is a required safety system to prevent oil spill disasters if other safety measures are ineffective.
When the buyers bought Future Production, it was discovered that Future Production did not have any rights to Seadrill's patent covering the ADS. The founders explained that there were "gentlemen's agreements" etc. in place, but the buyers were not comforted. Thus, the following indemnity clause was included in the SPA:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set out in this Agreement, the Seller shall indemnify and hold the Buyer harmless from any and all loss, claims, damages, costs and liabilities of whatsoever nature arising out of any of the following matters or events:
When Seadrill discovered a patent infringement relating to four rigs owned by Transocean supplied with the ADS, it presented a claim against the rig owner. A settlement was reached between Seadrill and Transocean. Transocean thereafter sent the bill to its supplier, who passed it further down the supply chain until it ended up in the hands of Future Production and its new owners.
The Court of Appeal considered the wording of the indemnity clause and found that there was a situation covered by the indemnity clause under the SPA. It also found that the indemnity claim was not time-barred. With respect to the size of the claim, the Court of Appeal found that the settlement between Seadrill and Transocean was on commercial terms and that there were no irregularities with respect to the calculation of the settlement fee.
The Court of Appeal commented that a practice based on oral agreements and lack of notoriety had to be considered unusual in professional, IP and international relations where large economic interests are at stake. The founder's arguments concerning the statute of limitation andpassivity etc. were not successful.
In the end, Future Production's sale of ADS triggers had been unauthorized and without any license agreement. Thus, the founder was ordered to indemnify the buyer by paying NOK 11,258,004.50, in addition to the legal costs of NOK 2,536,340 for the District Court and NOK 1,883,240 for the Court of Appeal.
The lesson learned from the decision is that founders (and sellers as such) should be careful when agreeing to IP indemnity clauses, as the consequences can be both costly and time-consuming. While we understand that the risk may be calculated in some situations, it may make sense to try to mitigate the risk by entering into a dialogue with the IP owner and obtaining a license instead of relying on the IP owners not enforcing its IP rights.