Lubrizol v. Richmond Metal Finishers

Citation: Lubrizol Enters., Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc. (In re Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc.), 34 B.R. 521, stay den., 36 B.R. 270, rev'd, 756 F.2d 1046, 226 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 961 (4th Cir. 1985), ''cert. denied,'' 475 U.S. 1057 (1986).

The Court of Appeals permitted rejection in its entirety of a nonexclusive license to a metal-coating process which was the subject of a pending patent application. The court found continuing obligations on both sides in the form of the licensor's duty to defend the technology against infringers'', to [[indemnification|indemnify for any breach of warranty and to honor a most favored licensee clause, and licensee's duty to account, to pay royalties and to keep the technology in confidence.

The business judgment requirement was satisfied by the debtor's allegation that it would be better able to license other parties on more favorable terms by "stripping Lubrizol of its rights in the process."