Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 MAY 2023

Intellectual Property Buyback Agreement

Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Explore more from Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys

Do you know that in the year 2005, the popular music track identifying application, "Shazam", assigned its "Audio Recognition technology"

IndiaIntellectual Property
Harsha Aswani
Harsha Aswani
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

Do you know that in the year 2005, the popular music track identifying application, "Shazam", assigned its "Audio Recognition technology" and related patents to Broadcast Music Inc.® (BMI®), to facilitate immediate funding for its development, and in turn acquired an exclusive license from BMI® to use the same technology?

Also, do you know that in 2011, when Shazam successfully built its IP Portfolio and attracted a large "loyal" customer base, it reacquired the earlier assigned "Audio Recognition technology and related Patents" from BMI® for an undisclosed amount?

But how does this transaction facilitate? Why would BMI® even allow Shazam to reacquire its technology and related intellectual property despite knowing that there are about 200 commercially viable patents filed for this technology, all of which are synonyms of success?

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law
Article

Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2026: Enhancing Transparency And Consumer Protection In E-Commerce

The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2026 introduce significant compliance obligations for e-commerce platforms, particularly regarding the disclosure of Country of Origin and other product information. This article analyses the key amendments, their implications for manufacturers, importers, and online marketplaces, and the broader objectives of strengthening consumer protection in the digital marketplace.
IndiaConsumer Protection
Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys