- 31 -
exclusive licenses. We see no difference between the situation
in Stankevich v. Commissioner, supra, and the facts presented in
the cases here under consideration. See also Glassley v.
Commissioner, supra.
In Diamond v. Commissioner, supra, the partnership granted
an option to a research contractor to acquire an exclusive
license to the new technology at some future time. Because the
option could have been exercised for a relatively nominal amount,
we concluded that there was no realistic prospect that the
partnership would ever enter any trade or business relating to
the technology. Id. at 440-441.
The cases before us now involve the simultaneous execution
by the limited partnerships of an R&D agreement and an exclusive
license agreement. Although executed a year apart, the R&D
agreements entered into by Yuma Mesa and Cactus Wren were
substantially identical.
Section B, paragraph 5 of the R&D agreement entered into
between Yuma Mesa and HTP on December 31, 1982, stipulates in
part:
All technology developed, whether or not capable of
patent or trademark registration, shall be the sole
property of Investor * * * [Yuma Mesa] and shall be the
subject of the License Agreement being concurrently
executed by the Investor * * * [Yuma Mesa] and Mesa
Plantations, Inc.
Section B, paragraph 5 of the R&D agreement entered into
between Cactus Wren and MBP on December 31, 1983, stipulates in
part:
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011