Free Word download • Edit online • Save & share with Drive • Export to PDF
An Invention Nonexclusive License Agreement is a legally binding contract in which a patent holder or inventor (the licensor) grants one or more third parties (licensees) defined rights to use, manufacture, sell, or import a specific patented invention — without transferring ownership of the patent and without preventing the licensor from granting identical or similar rights to any number of additional parties. Unlike an exclusive license, which locks a single licensee into a monopoly position, a nonexclusive license allows the same invention to be commercialized across multiple companies, markets, or product categories simultaneously, each generating independent royalty streams for the licensor. The agreement defines precisely which rights are granted, within what field of use and geographic territory, at what royalty rate, and under what conditions either party may terminate the arrangement.
Without a written invention nonexclusive license agreement, any commercial arrangement between a patent holder and a manufacturer or distributor rests on an implied license — a legal construct that courts value unpredictably and that provides none of the royalty-reporting, audit, or termination protections a negotiated contract supplies. A licensee that begins manufacturing a patented product without a signed agreement can argue it is entitled to a royalty-free implied license, leaving the inventor with no enforceable right to compensation. Conversely, a licensor that hands over technical documentation and allows commercialization to proceed informally may inadvertently grant rights broader than intended, including sublicensing or global rights never discussed. A properly drafted nonexclusive license agreement fixes the royalty rate, caps the licensor's liability, preserves the right to audit sales records, and gives both parties a defined exit path — converting an informal relationship into a durable, auditable revenue arrangement that protects the invention's commercial value for the life of the patent.
| If your situation is… | Use this template |
|---|---|
| Granting a single licensee the sole right to commercialize the invention | Exclusive License Agreement |
| Licensing software code or a digital product rather than a physical invention | Software License Agreement |
| Assigning full ownership of the invention rather than licensing it | Patent Assignment Agreement |
| Licensing know-how, trade secrets, and technology alongside the patent | Technology License Agreement |
| Granting rights to a trademark or brand rather than an invention | Trademark License Agreement |
| Licensing creative or artistic work protected by copyright, not patent | Copyright License Agreement |
| Sharing confidential technical details with a prospective licensee before signing | Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) |
Why it matters: Ambiguity over which deductions — freight, returns, taxes, distributor fees — reduce the royalty base can result in years of systematic underpayment and expensive royalty audits.
Fix: Define Net Sales exhaustively in the definitions section, listing each permitted deduction by category and capping aggregate deductions at a reasonable percentage of gross sales.
Why it matters: Without a floor, a licensee can hold a nonexclusive license indefinitely without commercializing the invention, blocking the licensor from pursuing other licensees who might actually pay.
Fix: Include a minimum annual royalty provision — set at a level that reflects reasonable expected commercialization — with a reversion right if the minimum is not met.
Why it matters: If the licensor stops paying maintenance fees and the patent lapses, the licensee's products become unprotected, its competitors can copy the technology, and it has no legal recourse against the licensor for the loss.
Fix: Add a clause requiring the licensor to notify the licensee at least 60 days before any maintenance fee deadline it does not intend to pay, giving the licensee the option to pay and offset the cost against future royalties.
Why it matters: Sublicensees who are not contractually bound to the same audit, reporting, and royalty terms as the original licensee can divert royalties through opaque sublicense structures with no remedy for the licensor.
Fix: Require every sublicense agreement to incorporate, by reference, the royalty-reporting, audit, and termination rights from the master agreement, and provide the licensor with a copy of each sublicense within 30 days of execution.
Why it matters: Activity before execution creates an implied license that courts have valued differently than the negotiated royalty rate — often resulting in lower court-determined royalties than the licensor intended to receive.
Fix: Execute the agreement before the licensee takes any steps to manufacture, sell, or use the licensed invention, including prototype development under any informal arrangement.
Why it matters: Warranting that the patent is valid and enforceable exposes the licensor to liability if the patent is later invalidated in inter partes review or litigation — an event entirely outside the licensor's control.
Fix: Limit the warranty to the licensor's ownership and right to grant the license; disclaim any warranty of patent validity, enforceability, or freedom from third-party infringement claims.
In plain language: Identifies the licensor and licensee by full legal name and entity type, states the background context — including the patent number or application — and defines key terms used throughout the agreement.
This Nonexclusive License Agreement ('Agreement') is entered into as of [DATE] between [LICENSOR LEGAL NAME], a [STATE/COUNTRY] [ENTITY TYPE] ('Licensor'), and [LICENSEE LEGAL NAME], a [STATE/COUNTRY] [ENTITY TYPE] ('Licensee'). Licensor owns U.S. Patent No. [PATENT NUMBER] titled '[INVENTION TITLE]' ('Licensed Patent').
Common mistake: Referencing a patent application number instead of the issued patent number without an explicit clause addressing what happens if the application is abandoned or rejected — leaving the licensee paying royalties on rights that may never vest.
In plain language: States the specific rights granted — to make, use, sell, offer for sale, and import — and confirms they are nonexclusive, meaning the licensor can grant the same rights to other parties concurrently.
Subject to the terms herein, Licensor hereby grants to Licensee a nonexclusive, non-transferable license under the Licensed Patent to make, have made, use, sell, and import Licensed Products within the Territory solely within the Field of Use.
Common mistake: Omitting 'have made' rights — which allow the licensee to subcontract manufacturing to a third party — forcing the licensee to return to the licensor for a separate amendment every time it uses a contract manufacturer.
In plain language: Limits the licensee's rights to a defined industry segment, application category, or product type, and to a defined geographic territory — preserving the licensor's ability to grant different rights to others.
The license granted herein is limited to the Field of Use defined as [SPECIFIC APPLICATION/INDUSTRY], and to the Territory defined as [COUNTRY/REGION]. Licensee shall not exercise any rights under this Agreement outside the defined Field of Use or Territory.
Common mistake: Defining the field of use so broadly that it conflicts with rights already granted to another licensee, triggering a breach of that prior agreement.
In plain language: Sets the royalty rate and base (e.g., percentage of net sales), the payment frequency, the currency, and the licensee's obligation to maintain records and submit royalty reports.
Licensee shall pay Licensor a royalty of [X]% of Net Sales of Licensed Products, payable quarterly within [45] days of each calendar quarter end. Licensee shall maintain complete and accurate records for [3] years and provide quarterly royalty reports in the form attached as Exhibit A.
Common mistake: Failing to define 'Net Sales' — courts have seen disputes over whether deductions for freight, returns, taxes, and distributor discounts are included, resulting in years of royalty underpayment or overpayment.
In plain language: States any one-time license fee due at signing and any future milestone payments triggered by defined commercial events such as first commercial sale, regulatory approval, or achieving a revenue threshold.
Licensee shall pay Licensor a non-refundable upfront license fee of $[AMOUNT] within [30] days of execution. In addition, Licensee shall pay milestone payments as follows: $[AMOUNT] upon [MILESTONE 1]; $[AMOUNT] upon [MILESTONE 2].
Common mistake: Setting milestone payments without defining the triggering event precisely — 'first commercial sale' has been disputed in court over whether internal transfers, samples, or trial sales qualify.
In plain language: States whether the licensee may grant sublicenses to third parties, and if so, under what conditions — including licensor approval, flow-down of terms, and the licensor's share of sublicense revenue.
Licensee shall not sublicense the rights granted hereunder without the prior written consent of Licensor. Any permitted sublicense shall be in writing, shall incorporate terms at least as protective of Licensor as this Agreement, and Licensor shall receive [X]% of all sublicense consideration received by Licensee.
Common mistake: Granting sublicensing rights without requiring the sublicense agreement to flow down the royalty-reporting and audit obligations — creating a gap through which royalties can be diverted without detection.
In plain language: Allocates responsibility for paying patent office maintenance fees, prosecuting pending applications, and responding to office actions — and addresses what happens if the licensor decides to abandon the patent.
Licensor shall be responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the Licensed Patent at Licensor's expense. Licensor shall provide Licensee with [30] days' prior written notice before abandoning any claim of the Licensed Patent, giving Licensee the option to assume prosecution at Licensee's expense.
Common mistake: Leaving patent maintenance cost allocation silent — if the licensor later abandons the patent for non-payment of maintenance fees, the licensee discovers its license is worthless only after building a product around it.
In plain language: Requires each party to notify the other of any known or suspected third-party infringement of the licensed patent and allocates the right — and cost — of taking enforcement action.
Each party shall promptly notify the other upon becoming aware of any infringement or threatened infringement of the Licensed Patent. Licensor shall have the first right to enforce the Licensed Patent at its expense. If Licensor elects not to act within [90] days of notice, Licensee may, with Licensor's written consent, institute suit at Licensee's expense.
Common mistake: Giving the licensee no enforcement rights at all — if the licensor refuses to sue a competitor who is copying the licensed product, the licensee has no remedy and its competitive position erodes with no recourse.
In plain language: Defines the agreement's duration — typically the life of the patent — the conditions that allow early termination for breach, insolvency, or non-performance, and what the licensee may do with existing inventory after termination.
This Agreement shall remain in force until the expiration of the last-to-expire Licensed Patent unless earlier terminated. Either party may terminate upon [60] days' written notice if the other party materially breaches and fails to cure within [30] days. Upon termination, Licensee may sell off existing inventory for [90] days, subject to continued royalty obligations.
Common mistake: Omitting a sell-off period for finished-goods inventory at termination — the licensee may have thousands of units in the supply chain, and an immediate termination creates a destroyed-inventory dispute.
In plain language: States the licensor's warranty that it owns the patent and has the right to license it, disclaims any warranty that the patent is valid or that practicing it will not infringe third-party rights, and caps the licensor's liability.
Licensor represents and warrants that it owns the Licensed Patent and has the full right to grant the licenses herein. LICENSOR MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE LICENSED PATENT IS VALID, ENFORCEABLE, OR THAT USE OF THE INVENTION WILL NOT INFRINGE THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL LICENSOR'S LIABILITY EXCEED THE TOTAL ROYALTIES PAID IN THE [12] MONTHS PRECEDING THE CLAIM.
Common mistake: Promising that the licensed patent is valid and will not be challenged — a licensor cannot make this guarantee, and an overly broad warranty exposes the licensor to liability if a licensee successfully defends an infringement suit by invalidating the patent.
Enter the full legal names and entity types for both licensor and licensee. Reference the licensed patent by its exact issued patent number, title, and jurisdiction — or if a pending application, by application number with a clause addressing abandonment or rejection.
💡 Run a USPTO (or relevant national patent office) search to confirm the patent is in force and that maintenance fees are current before signing.
Draft the field-of-use definition narrowly enough to preserve the licensor's ability to grant parallel licenses in other fields, but broadly enough to cover the licensee's realistic product roadmap. Set a geographic territory that matches where the licensee actually operates and where the licensor holds patent rights.
💡 If the licensor has already granted another licensee rights in an overlapping field, disclose this and confirm the fields do not conflict before execution.
Choose a royalty base — typically net sales of licensed products — and define every deduction allowed. Set the royalty rate based on the technology's value and comparable industry benchmarks (pharma: 2–10%; manufacturing: 1–5%; software tools: 3–8%). Specify payment frequency and the format of royalty reports.
💡 Include a minimum annual royalty provision — a floor that the licensee must pay regardless of sales — to ensure the licensor receives baseline value even if the licensee underperforms.
Decide whether the licensee needs sublicensing rights and whether it needs 'have made' rights to use contract manufacturers. If sublicensing is permitted, specify the approval process, flow-down requirements, and the licensor's revenue share.
💡 For most manufacturing licenses, include 'have made' rights by default — the licensee's supply chain will almost certainly involve third-party manufacturers.
Confirm who pays maintenance fees and handles prosecution. Include a mandatory advance-notice provision requiring the licensor to notify the licensee before abandoning any claim, with the licensee's option to assume prosecution at its own cost.
💡 Ask for a copy of the most recent patent office correspondence to confirm the patent is not currently under rejection or inter partes review before signing.
Set out the sequence of enforcement rights: licensor has first right to sue, with a defined response window (typically 90 days), after which the licensee may proceed with licensor consent. Address cost-sharing and how any damages recovered are divided.
💡 In a nonexclusive license, courts in the US typically require the patent owner (licensor) to be joined as a party in any infringement action — confirm your counsel is aware of this standing requirement.
Specify the agreement's duration, the cure period for material breach (typically 30 days), and insolvency as an automatic termination trigger. Add a sell-off window — 60 to 90 days — allowing the licensee to clear existing inventory after termination.
💡 Include a termination-for-convenience right for the licensee only — many licensees require the ability to exit if the technology becomes obsolete, with reasonable advance notice.
Select a governing jurisdiction with well-developed patent licensing case law. Both parties should sign before the licensee begins manufacturing, selling, or using the licensed invention — activity before execution creates an implied license that may be impossible to price retroactively.
💡 Have an IP attorney review the final document before execution, particularly if the licensed patent covers technology in a regulated industry or if the royalty structure involves milestone payments above $100,000.
An invention nonexclusive license agreement is a contract in which a patent or invention owner grants one or more parties the right to use, make, sell, or import a specific invention without transferring ownership and without preventing the licensor from granting identical rights to other parties. It is the standard instrument for commercializing a patent broadly across multiple manufacturers or markets while retaining full ownership and continuing to earn royalty revenue from each licensee.
An exclusive license gives a single licensee the sole right to exploit the invention — the licensor cannot grant the same rights to anyone else during the term. A nonexclusive license allows the licensor to grant the same or similar rights to multiple licensees simultaneously. Exclusive licenses command higher upfront fees and royalty rates; nonexclusive licenses generate lower per-licensee revenue but allow the licensor to build a broader licensing portfolio.
In the United States, a nonexclusive licensee typically lacks independent standing to bring a patent infringement lawsuit because it has no exclusionary right — only the patent owner holds that right. The licensee must generally ask the licensor to sue and, if the licensor declines, may have limited remedies. Some agreements grant the licensee a conditional right to sue after the licensor refuses to act within a defined window, but the patent owner usually must be joined as a party. Rules differ in other jurisdictions; consult an IP attorney for enforcement strategy.
Royalty rates vary significantly by industry and technology maturity. Pharmaceutical and biotech patents typically carry rates of 2–10% of net sales. Industrial and manufacturing patents range from 1–5%. Software and technology tools run 3–8%. University technology transfer offices often start negotiations at 3–5% for early-stage technologies. The most reliable benchmark is the 25% rule of thumb — the licensee pays roughly 25% of the expected gross profit attributable to the patented feature — though courts have moved away from this as a stand-alone standard.
Only if the license agreement expressly permits it. Without an explicit sublicensing right, a licensee cannot grant third parties the right to use the invention. When sublicensing is permitted, the agreement should specify whether the licensor's prior written consent is required for each sublicense, what percentage of sublicense revenue the licensor receives, and which terms of the master agreement must be flowed down to the sublicensee.
If a court or patent office proceeding invalidates the licensed patent, the obligation to pay future royalties typically terminates — there is no longer a valid IP right to compensate the licensor for. Whether the licensee can recover royalties already paid depends on the agreement's language and jurisdiction. In the US, the Supreme Court held in Lear v. Adkins (1969) that a licensee may challenge patent validity even while paying royalties, and may stop paying upon a successful invalidity finding.
In most negotiated agreements, the licensor retains responsibility for paying patent office maintenance fees and prosecuting the patent, since the licensor owns the underlying right. However, the agreement should require the licensor to notify the licensee before abandoning any claim or letting maintenance fees lapse, giving the licensee the option to assume prosecution costs and offset them against future royalties. Silence on this point is one of the most common and costly drafting oversights.
Yes — agreements can be structured around a pending patent application, typically referred to as a license under 'the Licensed Patent and any patents issuing therefrom.' However, the licensee takes on the risk that the application may be rejected, amended, or narrowed during prosecution. The agreement should address this contingency: what happens to royalty obligations and the license grant if the application is abandoned or if issued claims are materially narrower than those pending at signing.
For straightforward domestic licenses with standard royalty structures, a high-quality template reviewed by an IP attorney is usually sufficient. Engage a patent lawyer when the technology is in a regulated industry (pharma, medical devices, defense), when the royalty structure involves complex milestone payments or cross-licenses, when the licensee operates internationally in jurisdictions with local patent law nuances, or when the license is expected to generate more than $250,000 in total royalties. Attorney fees for a patent license review typically run $500–$2,000.
An exclusive license agreement grants a single licensee the sole right to exploit the invention — the licensor cannot license the same rights to anyone else during the term. This commands significantly higher upfront fees and royalty rates. Choose an exclusive license when a licensee requires market exclusivity to justify a large commercialization investment; choose a nonexclusive license when broad market penetration and multiple royalty streams are the goal.
A patent assignment transfers full legal ownership of the patent from inventor to assignee — the original owner retains no rights and receives no ongoing royalties. A nonexclusive license retains the licensor's ownership, preserves ongoing royalty income, and allows the same invention to be licensed to additional parties. Choose an assignment only when a clean, permanent transfer of ownership is the commercial objective.
A technology license agreement is broader in scope — it typically covers not only a specific patent but also accompanying know-how, trade secrets, technical documentation, and training rights. An invention nonexclusive license agreement is narrower, covering only the defined patent rights. Use the technology license agreement when the licensee needs both the patent and the tacit knowledge required to actually implement it.
An NDA protects confidential information shared during pre-license negotiations but does not grant any IP rights. An invention nonexclusive license agreement grants actual usage rights once terms are agreed. The NDA should be executed first, before sharing technical details of the invention, and the license agreement executes afterward if the parties reach a commercial arrangement.
Royalty structures include regulatory milestone payments tied to FDA approval stages; reach-through royalties on products developed using licensed research tools are common and heavily negotiated.
Field-of-use restrictions often map to specific product categories or SIC codes; 'have made' rights are essential for licensees using contract manufacturers in multiple countries.
Patent licenses frequently accompany or intersect with software license agreements; standard-essential patent (SEP) licenses must comply with FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations.
Royalties are typically calculated on per-unit or wholesale price bases; sell-off provisions are critical given large finished-goods inventory cycles and seasonal product launches.
Technology transfer offices routinely grant nonexclusive licenses to multiple industry partners; government-funded inventions may carry Bayh-Dole Act march-in rights and domestic manufacturing requirements.
Component and process patents are frequently licensed nonexclusively across suppliers in a supply chain; indemnification against third-party infringement claims is a heavily negotiated term.
US patent licenses are governed by federal patent law (35 U.S.C.) and contract law of the chosen state. A nonexclusive licensee generally lacks standing to sue for infringement without the patent owner joined as a co-plaintiff (WiAV Solutions v. Motorola). The Bayh-Dole Act imposes domestic manufacturing preferences and government march-in rights on inventions developed with federal funding. Non-compete provisions in patent licenses are assessed under state law and can be voided in California.
Canadian patent licenses are governed by the Patent Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4) and provincial contract law. Canada does not have an at-will patent licensing doctrine equivalent to US common law; license terms are interpreted strictly. Bilingual obligations may apply in Quebec for agreements with Quebec-resident licensees. Government-funded inventions may be subject to crown use provisions under the Patent Act.
UK patent licenses are governed by the Patents Act 1977 and must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the licensor to be fully effective against third parties. A nonexclusive licensee has no right to bring infringement proceedings in their own name under UK law — only the patent proprietor may sue. Post-Brexit, UK and EU patent rights are fully separate; a UK license does not cover EU member states and vice versa. UKIPO registration of the license, while not mandatory, provides protection against subsequent registered interests.
EU patent licensing is governed by national law of each member state, with significant variation in enforcement rights and compulsory licensing provisions. The Unified Patent Court (UPC), operational since 2023, creates a single jurisdiction for enforcing European patents in participating member states, which affects where infringement actions can be brought. Technology transfer agreements must comply with EU Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) No. 316/2014 to benefit from Article 101 TFEU exemption; nonexclusive licenses between non-competing parties generally satisfy the TTBER safe harbor. GDPR compliance is relevant if any royalty reporting involves personal data.
| Path | Best for | Cost | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use the template | Individual inventors and small businesses granting straightforward domestic licenses with standard percentage royalties | Free | 1–3 hours to complete |
| Template + legal review | Licenses involving milestone payments above $50,000, sublicensing rights, or licensees operating in multiple countries | $500–$2,000 for IP attorney review | 3–7 days |
| Custom drafted | Pharmaceutical, medical device, or defense technology licenses; standard-essential patent (FRAND) licenses; or royalty structures expected to exceed $1M | $3,000–$15,000+ | 2–6 weeks |
This document is one of 3,000+ business & legal templates included in Business in a Box.
Access over 3,000+ business and legal templates for any business task, project or initiative.
Customize your ready-made business document template and save it in the cloud.
Share your files and folders with your team. Create a space of seamless collaboration.
"Fantastic value! I'm not sure how I'd do without it. It's worth its weight in gold and paid back for itself many times."
"I have been using Business in a Box for years. It has been the most useful source of templates I have encountered. I recommend it to anyone."
"It has been a life saver so many times I have lost count. Business in a Box has saved me so much time and as you know, time is money."
Stop downloading documents. Start operating with clarity. Business in a Box gives you the Business Operating System used by over 250,000 companies worldwide to structure, run, and grow their business.
Start free · No credit card required
