AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

ENGELHARD CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. RESEARCH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.

We agree with the motion court that the parties' agreement, dated January 15, 1979, giving defendants the exclusive right to license certain compounds, including carboplatin, to pharmaceutical companies, does not unambiguously relieve defendants of the obligation to pay plaintiff a share of the royalties received by defendants from the licensee for technical information relating to carboplatin. In particular, the "adjusted gross income" provision of the subject contract contains language supportive of plaintiff's contention that the contracting parties intended to include, without qualification, both patent and technical information as subject to royalties pursuant to the agreement.

The cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was properly dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract claim (see, In re Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 964, 989).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ENGELHARD CORPORATION v. RESEARCH CORP
(Jan 25, 2000)