Recovering licence fees across borders is a distinct claim type: the debt sits inside a licence deed rather than a sales invoice, and the counterparty is often the party who once needed the licensor's rights the most. We assess the agreement, the payment record and the debtor's known assets before any letter goes out under the licensor's name.
Licence fee debt takes a narrower shape than a trade invoice. It is either a fixed periodic fee that stopped being paid after a renewal, or a royalty tied to reported sales, downloads or units that the licensee has understated or stopped reporting altogether. The trigger is rarely a single missed payment. More often the licensee keeps using the licensed mark, software or process while quietly treating the fee as negotiable.
Because the underlying right continues to be used, the creditor's leverage is different from an ordinary cross-border debt recovery claim: continued use without payment is itself part of the evidence, not a side issue.
A licence fee claim stands or falls on paper that already exists before we are instructed. The signed licence deed and every amendment matter first, because they fix the fee, the trigger for payment and any conditions attached to it. Sales, usage or download reports the licensee itself produced carry more weight than the licensor's own estimate of what is owed.
Where these exist in a usable form, the file moves quickly through the recovery process overview that applies to most cross-border commercial claims.
Licensees rarely deny using the right. They argue instead that the fee never became due, that the licence was breached by the licensor first, or that the amount claimed is calculated wrongly. A common line is that exclusivity was promised and not delivered, so the licensee treats its own fee obligation as suspended.
These defences fail most often where the payment clause is unconditional on its face and where the licensee's own usage figures contradict a claim that the right was never exercised. A dispute over scope or exclusivity, real as it may be, does not usually excuse payment for use that already happened. The same pattern appears in unpaid commission claims, where the debtor disputes the trigger rather than the underlying work performed.
The route starts with a formal demand that sets out the fee calculation and the documents behind it, sent once the position is assessed rather than on receipt of the file. Where the licensee has assets or a presence in a jurisdiction with pre-legal collection under a registered provider, that step follows before any court filing. An asset report at this stage tells the creditor whether pursuing the claim beyond the demand is worth the cost.
If the licence deed contains an arbitration clause, that clause governs the forum regardless of where either party sits. Absent one, the governing law and jurisdiction clause in the deed decides whether the claim goes to a national court, and instruments such as Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 or the New York Convention 1958 may then govern recognition of the resulting judgment or award in the country where the licensee holds assets.
Any fixed or royalty-based payment due under a licence deed that has not been paid despite continued use of the licensed right. Fees still under genuine dispute as to amount are treated differently from fees simply left unpaid.
A written deed makes the claim considerably stronger, since it fixes the payment trigger and the rate. Without one, the claim depends on correspondence and conduct showing that both parties treated a fee as owed, which is a weaker starting position.
It depends on whether the licensee disputes the fee outright or simply delays payment, and on which forum the licence deed points to. We give a route and a realistic timeframe once the deed and the payment history have been reviewed.
A licensee that keeps using the right while the fee goes unpaid is not a dispute that improves with time; the licence deed's evidentiary value and the licensee's own financial position both move against the licensor the longer it waits. Where the contract and the pattern of use both point the same way, the question is not whether to act but which route the deed itself points to.