Structuring IP Licenses to Avoid Prohibited Clauses Under Philippine Tech Transfer Rules (Renewable Energy Technology)
Introduction
Foreign corporations licensing renewable energy technology (such as solar PV manufacturing processes, battery management systems, wind turbine control software, or proprietary performance analytics) to Philippine affiliates must treat the agreement as a regulated technology transfer arrangement (TTA) when it involves patents, patent-related know-how, or related technical services. Under Philippine law, certain contract terms are either mandatory or presumed anti-competitive. If the agreement contains disallowed terms or omits required ones, the TTA can be treated as unenforceable, creating serious risks for royalty collection, dispute enforcement, and long-term group compliance.
Governing law and policy
The primary statute is the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293, effective 1998). It adopts the policy that intellectual property protection co-exists with the social function of IP and the State’s interest in technology diffusion and investment, while strengthening enforcement and rules on technology transfer. This policy context is reflected in Supreme Court discussions of State policy under the Code, including Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. v. Andrey, Inc. (G.R. No. 233918, 2022) and Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. v. Gomez (G.R. No. 154491, 2008), which cite the Code’s policy provisions and emphasize that IP rights are protected but regulated in line with public interest.
For renewable technology licensing, the most operationally important provisions are:
1) Prohibited clauses that are presumed to harm competition and trade (Section 87, RA 8293).
2) Mandatory clauses that must be present in voluntary licensing/TTAs (Section 88, RA 8293).
3) The consequence of non-compliance: non-conforming TTAs are automatically unenforceable unless approved and registered as an exceptional case (Section 92, RA 8293).
Why these rules matter for foreign licensors
In a typical group structure, the foreign parent (or an offshore IP holding company) licenses patents, software, and know-how to a Philippine subsidiary that manufactures components, runs a renewable project, or provides O&M and performance services. The licensor’s commercial goals often include quality control, supply-chain standardization, and protection of confidential know-how. Philippine TTA rules allow legitimate protection, but they draw lines against overreaching restraints that reduce market freedom or keep the licensee dependent beyond what is needed to protect the IP.
The main compliance goal is simple: avoid including prohibited clauses and ensure all mandatory clauses are present, so the agreement remains enforceable and workable for royalties, audits, and dispute resolution.
When a renewable technology license is likely treated as a regulated technology transfer arrangement
Licenses commonly treated as TTAs include agreements covering:
Patents (e.g., blade design patents, inverter topologies, battery cell assembly methods).
Patent-related know-how and technical services (e.g., manufacturing recipes, process parameters, commissioning protocols, training tied to patented processes).
Hybrid packages where the license includes patents plus “related” technical support and process documentation.
Even where the subject includes software, data models, or operational manuals, the licensing deal can still be scrutinized if it functions as a transfer of industrial technology, especially when paired with patented components or patented methods.
Mandatory clauses you must include (Section 88, RA 8293)
Philippine law requires that certain provisions be included in voluntary license contracts/TTAs. These are not “nice to have” clauses; they are required contract architecture.
Mandatory clause checklist
Philippine governing law and venue in Philippine courts (licensee’s principal office): The agreement must state that Philippine laws govern interpretation, and that litigation venue is the proper court where the licensee’s principal office is located (Section 88.1, RA 8293).
Access to improvements during the term: Continued access to improvements in techniques and processes related to the technology must be made available during the TTA period (Section 88.2, RA 8293).
Arbitration (if chosen) must use recognized rules and proper seat: If the TTA provides for arbitration, it must apply either the Philippines’ arbitration procedure or UNCITRAL or ICC rules, and the arbitration venue must be the Philippines or a neutral country (Section 88.3, RA 8293).
Philippine taxes on payments must be borne by the licensor: The contract must provide that Philippine taxes on all payments relating to the TTA are borne by the licensor (Section 88.4, RA 8293).
Practical drafting notes for foreign licensors
Governing law vs. global template: Many multinational templates default to foreign law (e.g., Singapore, England, New York) and foreign courts. For Philippine TTAs, that default is a compliance red flag. Rework the governing law and venue section to match Section 88.1.
Improvements: If your group has a fast innovation cycle (common in battery chemistries and inverter software), define “improvements” carefully and set reasonable delivery methods (e.g., periodic release notes, controlled documentation access) while still offering continued access during the term.
Tax gross-up clauses: Many cross-border contracts place withholding taxes on the payer. Section 88.4 points the other way. Coordinate with tax counsel to draft a compliant structure that still achieves your intended net economics.
Prohibited clauses to avoid (Section 87, RA 8293)
Section 87 enumerates provisions that are prima facie deemed to have an adverse effect on competition and trade. For compliance, treat these as “do not include” clauses unless you are prepared to pursue the exceptional approval/registration route for a non-conforming arrangement (and accept the risk and timing issues).
Common prohibited clauses in renewable tech licenses
Forced sourcing / forced hiring: Requiring the Philippine affiliate to buy capital equipment, intermediates, raw materials, or other technologies only from a named source, or to permanently employ licensor-identified personnel (Section 87.1, RA 8293).
Resale price control: Reserving to the licensor the right to fix sale or resale prices of products manufactured under the license (Section 87.2, RA 8293).
Production volume/structure restrictions: Restrictions on the volume and structure of production (Section 87.3, RA 8293).
Ban on competitive technologies in non-exclusive TTAs: Prohibiting use of competitive technologies in a non-exclusive TTA (Section 87.4, RA 8293).
Licensor purchase option: Full or partial purchase option in favor of the licensor (Section 87.5, RA 8293).
Free assignment of improvements to licensor: Obliging the licensee to transfer for free to the licensor inventions or improvements obtained through use of the licensed technology (Section 87.6, RA 8293).
Royalties for unused patents: Requiring royalties to be paid for patents that are not used (Section 87.7, RA 8293).
Export bans without legitimate justification: Prohibiting export of the licensed product unless justified to protect legitimate interests (e.g., where exclusive manufacturing/distribution licenses were already granted for export markets) (Section 87.8, RA 8293).
Post-term restrictions on technology use: Restricting the use of technology after the expiration of the TTA (with limited exceptions, such as early termination attributable to the licensee) (Section 87.9, RA 8293).
Payments beyond IP expiry: Requiring payments for patents or other industrial property rights after their expiration or termination (Section 87.10, RA 8293).
Table: Risky renewable-tech provisions and safer alternatives
| Business goal | Clause that can trigger Section 87 risk | Common compliant alternative approach |
|---|---|---|
| Quality control for components (e.g., inverter boards, blade resin) | Mandatory sourcing from a single supplier chosen by licensor | Set objective specs, certification testing, audit rights, and approved-vendor criteria that allow multiple suppliers |
| Protect pricing consistency across group markets | Licensor fixes resale prices of manufactured products | Use suggested retail pricing (non-binding) or transfer pricing arrangements limited to intercompany sales (subject to separate tax review) |
| Limit cannibalization or ensure capacity for group projects | Restrictions on volume/structure of production | Use forecast commitments or minimum purchase obligations tied to legitimate supply planning, avoiding hard caps that restrain market output |
| Ensure the IP owner benefits from improvements | Free transfer of improvements to licensor | License-back of improvements on fair terms, or joint-ownership/royalty-bearing assignment arrangements |
| Preserve territorial exclusivities | Blanket export ban | Targeted export limitations tied to existing exclusive territories and justified “legitimate interest” wording consistent with Section 87.8 |
Consequences of non-compliance: unenforceability and related business fallout
Under Section 92 of RA 8293, non-conformance with any of the prohibited-clause rules (Section 87) or mandatory provisions (Section 88) automatically renders the TTA unenforceable, unless the agreement is approved and registered under the exceptional cases mechanism referenced by the statute (Section 92, RA 8293).
From a commercial standpoint, “unenforceable” can affect:
Royalty collection and the ability to sue for unpaid royalties.
Dispute clauses, including the enforceability of arbitration or court remedies depending on how the invalidity infects the contract’s structure.
Audit and compliance provisions that support royalty reporting and confidential handling.
Exit rights and post-termination controls if they are drafted in ways that overlap with Section 87.9 or 87.10.
How to structure renewable tech licensing so it stays enforceable
Below is an approach commonly used for cross-border intra-group licensing when the Philippine licensee needs operational freedom but the foreign licensor still needs safeguards.
1) Separate “IP license” from “supply” and “services” arrangements
If your business requires supply exclusivity (e.g., only licensor-approved critical parts) or extensive services, consider using separate agreements: one for technology/IP licensing and another for supply or services, each with its own commercial logic. This helps reduce the risk that the IP license itself contains Section 87-type restraints.
2) Use objective quality and safety controls instead of forced sourcing
Renewable energy equipment is safety-sensitive. Rather than requiring purchase from a named supplier, use measurable standards: compliance with international technical standards, factory acceptance tests, third-party certifications, and documented QA processes. This supports legitimate quality control without falling into Section 87.1.
3) Handle improvements in a way that does not demand free transfers
Section 88.2 already requires continued access to improvements during the term, and Section 87.6 flags “free transfer” obligations. A balanced structure is to:
define improvements (what counts and what does not),
license improvements back to the licensor on reasonable terms, or
assign improvements with compensation (royalty-bearing or lump-sum) where appropriate.
4) Align royalties with actual IP use and term
Avoid “evergreen” royalties and avoid charging royalties for patents that are not used. Calibrate royalties to the licensed scope and ensure payment obligations do not extend beyond patent expiry or agreement termination in a manner covered by Section 87.10. If the deal includes mixed IP (patents + know-how), draft the payment structure so that post-expiry payments (if any) clearly relate to continuing know-how or services and do not read as payment for expired patent rights.
5) Draft export rules narrowly and justify them
Renewable components are often exported. If the licensor needs territorial protection due to existing exclusive distribution or manufacturing grants abroad, draft export limits narrowly and tie them to the licensor’s “legitimate interest,” consistent with Section 87.8.
6) Keep post-termination controls within permitted bounds
Post-termination restrictions can easily collide with Section 87.9. Focus on protecting confidential information and trade secrets through standard confidentiality obligations, return/destruction of materials, and limited transitional assistance, rather than blanket restrictions on technology use beyond the agreement term.
Typical scenarios and compliance guidance
Scenario A: Solar component manufacturing license to a Philippine affiliate
If the foreign licensor wants consistent cell efficiency, it may be tempted to mandate a single chemical supplier or a single equipment brand. Instead, set minimum technical specs and validation procedures, and let the licensee source from multiple qualified vendors.
Scenario B: Battery management system software + patented method package
Ensure the agreement addresses that the Philippine licensee gets access to improvements during the term (Section 88.2), but avoid clauses that require the licensee to hand over software improvements for free (Section 87.6). A paid assignment or a license-back arrangement is typically safer.
Scenario C: Wind turbine servicing and monitoring tools
Monitoring tools often generate performance data and updated algorithms. Define what “improvements” mean, how updates are delivered, and how the affiliate can use them. If arbitration is included, the arbitration rules and venue must comply with Section 88.3.
Related jurisprudence and why it matters
While the Supreme Court cases below do not decide Section 87/88 disputes directly in the excerpts provided, they are useful for explaining the policy direction of the IP Code and the boundaries of IP rights:
Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. v. Andrey, Inc. (G.R. No. 233918, 2022) underscores that Philippine IP rights are enforceable as defined by statute, and foreign concepts not adopted into Philippine law do not control; this supports a compliance-first approach to local statutory requirements.
Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. v. Gomez (G.R. No. 154491, 2008) reiterates the importance of the IP Code’s defined coverage and policy provisions; for licensing, it is a reminder to anchor rights and restrictions to what the Code recognizes and regulates.
Compliance checklist for foreign corporations licensing renewable technology to Philippine affiliates
Before signing:
Confirm the agreement includes all Section 88 mandatory provisions (governing law/venue, improvements access, arbitration conditions if any, tax burden on licensor).
Review the full contract for any Section 87 prohibited clauses, including in annexes, “operating manuals,” side letters, or purchasing addenda.
Verify that royalty clauses do not charge for unused patents and do not extend payments past patent expiry/termination in a prohibited way.
Check export provisions for narrow drafting and legitimate-interest justification.
Align global templates (governing law, venue, taxes, arbitration) to Philippine requirements instead of default international standards.
Conclusion
For foreign corporations licensing renewable energy technology to Philippine affiliates, enforceability depends heavily on complying with the IP Code’s technology transfer rules. The most common pitfalls are (1) leaving out mandatory Section 88 terms, and (2) importing international template restrictions that match Section 87’s prohibited clauses, particularly forced sourcing, price controls, improvement grab clauses, export bans, and post-term technology restraints. A well-structured set of agreements—separating licensing from supply and services, using objective quality controls, and aligning royalties with actual IP use—helps protect both the licensor’s rights and the agreement’s enforceability under Philippine law.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
