However, a provision of the licensing agreement allows the licensee to terminate the contract before the start of insolvency due to a delay in payment, debt or a deterioration in the financial situation of the taker. In addition, a provision allowing termination of the contract in the event of a late payment or where the licensee cannot meet a minimum use obligation of the intellectual property right granted, even after the insolvency proceedings have been requested, is generally valid. With respect to the sub-licences that the licensee may have granted, the principles of question 36 should also apply in the event of the bankruptcy of the taker, whether the liquidator decides to no longer use the intellectual property right granted or the licensee terminates the contract before or after the application to initiate the insolvency proceedings. At least with respect to patents, the right of omission cannot be waived with real effect (LG Mannheim, case 7 O 94/08), but it may be waived to assert the right to omission in an agreement with a third party. In this case, the third party has a defence against the request for omission if the third party is prosecuted for violation (RGZ 153, 329, 331). There are restrictions on the applicability of such a waiver when terms and conditions are applied (see question 32). Several decisions have established that the lower licence granted by the licensee to his sublicensing was not affected by the termination of the agreement between the insolvent licensee and the purchaser (Bundesgerichtshof, I ZR 153/06, I ZR 24/11, i ZR 70/10). As a result, the licensee can reduce the risk of the donor`s bankruptcy by sub-licensing (z.B to its related licensed companies). The licensee does not have specific pre-contract advertising obligations. However, the general duty to act in good faith (see question 5) assumes that a party is subject to a potential licensing agreement with information sufficiently relevant to the other party`s decision for a disclosure to be reasonably expected. For example, the courts found an advertising obligation when the licensee was aware of the state of the art that could invalidate the patent (RG GRUR 41, 99, 101), or where the licensee was the inventor and owner of the rights to the invention whose use was to be granted but a third party, not the donor, was registered as a formal applicant for the corresponding patent application (LG Munchen I, case).