Within this structure, this section recognizes the injured party's right to recover the information and prevent further use by the other party. This reflects the conditional nature of the license relationship, which makes it more analogous to a lease of goods, than to a sale. The remedies here are, in an intangibles context, analogous to the remedies recognized in Article 2A.

2. Rights Recognized. Subsection (a) recognizes two distinct rights for the injured party. It can obtain possession of all copies of the information and, when appropriate, obtain an injunction against further use of the information. This combination is necessary to fully implement the intent that, on cancellation of the license, the injured party has a full right to preclude further benefits to the breaching party resulting from the licensed information. In many cases involving informational content, merely returning all copies does not achieve that result.

3. Self-help. A license is a conditional transfer. Subsection (b) reflects that fact and provides for a right of self-help consistent with remedies under current Article 2A and Article 9. The self-help right is constrained by 1) there being a breach sufficient to cancel the license and 2) the ability to exercise self-help without causing a "breach of the peace" or a foreseeable risk of personal injury or significant damage to information or property other than the licensed information.

Subsection places more restrictions on general self-help than exist in reference to leases under Article 2A or security interests under Article 9. While the "breach of peace" limitation exists under Article 2A and Article 9, the further "foreseeable risk" standard is adopted here.

4. Expedited Hearing. To reduce the need for self-help, subsection (d) provides for a right to an expedited hearing to enforce rights or possession and restriction of use. No effort has been made to define the contours of what that hearing timing may entail. This is left to state procedural law.

5. Identifiability. The rights under 2B-715 arise only in the case of a license and only in the event of cancellation. Furthermore, as indicated in subsection (e), there must be something with reference to which the rights can be applied. The right to possession of copies obviously cannot exist to the extent the copies of the information cannot be identified because they have been commingled. This deals, for example, with cases where data are thoroughly intermingled with data of the other party and that intermingling occurs in the ordinary performance under the license. In such cases, repossession is impossible because of the expected performance of the parties under the contract.

This does not necessarily apply to the right to prevent use. For example, if trade secret information was provided to the licensee under use restrictions, the ability to prevent further use hinges solely on whether a particular activity can be identified as involving use of the information. If an image, trademark, name or similar material is incorporated and inseparable from other property of the party in breach, that does not preclude the injured party from preventing further use of the information by the party in breach. Thus, a license of the "Mickey Mouse" character which results in placing that image in a video game produced by the party in breach does not prevent the other party from barring continued use of the image on the hats in commerce.