## Facts

- Epic Systems Corporation (Epic) entered a nonexclusive, nontransferable patent license agreement with Allcare Health Management System, Inc. (Allcare) covering one of Allcare’s patents (including U.S. Patent No. 5,301,105).
- Epic’s agreement required payment under a running-royalty structure set out in multiple provisions governing royalty calculation and payment.
- The agreement included a most-favored-nation (MFN) provision allowing Epic to substitute the “financial terms” of any later license Allcare granted to “similarly situated” third-party licensees if those terms were more favorable than Epic’s.
- After contracting with Epic, Allcare sued a number of other parties for patent infringement, including MedicaLogic, Inc.
- MedicaLogic settled and obtained a nonexclusive license from Allcare in exchange for a lump-sum payment of $350,000 (a paid-up structure rather than a running royalty).
- Epic asked Allcare for information about MedicaLogic’s settlement license and other similar settlements to evaluate whether Epic could elect more favorable terms under the MFN provision.
- Allcare declined to disclose or confirm the settlement terms and argued the MFN provision was not implicated because the MedicaLogic deal was a lump-sum settlement rather than a running-royalty license.
- Epic formally exercised its MFN right (including by written notice) and tendered to Allcare the difference between $350,000 and the royalties Epic had already paid—about $146,000—seeking to convert its license to the more favorable lump-sum, paid-up financial terms.
- Allcare rejected Epic’s payment and refused to treat Epic’s license as paid up on the MedicaLogic financial terms.
- Epic sued for breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment confirming its right to substitute the more favorable financial terms; the case came before the federal district court on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the MFN provision allowing substitution of more favorable “financial terms” permitted Epic to elect a later lump-sum, paid-up settlement license’s payment terms in place of Epic’s running-royalty terms.
2. Whether the MedicaLogic settlement license was a license to a “similarly situated” third party such that it triggered Epic’s MFN substitution right.
3. Whether Epic’s notice and tender of the difference between $350,000 and amounts previously paid constituted a valid exercise of the MFN provision.
4. Whether Allcare breached the license agreement by refusing to recognize Epic’s MFN election and rejecting Epic’s tendered payment.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment in Epic’s favor on the central contract-interpretation question concerning the MFN provision.
- The court held that the MFN clause’s reference to “financial terms” allowed Epic to substitute more favorable payment terms from a later third-party license even if those terms took the form of a lump-sum, paid-up license rather than a running royalty.
- The court treated the MedicaLogic settlement license as qualifying for MFN purposes (i.e., a license granted to a similarly situated third party within the meaning of the agreement).
- The court concluded Epic properly exercised its MFN rights by electing the MedicaLogic financial terms and tendering the amount needed to reach the lump-sum level when crediting what Epic had already paid.
- The court determined Allcare’s refusal to honor Epic’s MFN election and rejection of the tender supported Epic’s breach-of-contract and declaratory-relief claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas contract law, when a contract term is unambiguous, courts apply its plain meaning rather than adding limitations not stated in the text.
- An MFN clause granting the right to substitute more favorable “financial terms” can apply to the overall payment structure of a license, including a lump-sum, paid-up arrangement, and is not limited to substitutions within the same royalty format unless the contract says so.
- A licensor cannot avoid an MFN provision aimed at equalizing economic treatment among comparable licensees by characterizing later deals as litigation settlements or by using a different payment method.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the material facts concerning the relevant agreements and the contract’s text are not genuinely disputed and the MFN clause can be interpreted as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

Epic Systems v. Allcare Health Management held that a patent license MFN provision allowing substitution of more favorable “financial terms” entitled the licensee to adopt a later, more favorable lump-sum paid-up settlement license’s terms, and the court granted summary judgment for Epic, supporting declaratory relief and a breach-of-contract theory based on Allcare’s refusal to accept Epic’s MFN election and tender.


Epic Systems v. Allcare Health Management, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17110 (2002)