Patent holders may also agree not to take legal action with companies to which they grant patent licenses. The patent holder cannot accept the licensee if a third party uses the patent without authorization, but reserves the right to sue a third party himself. However, the parties also argued that the reimbursement of the lineage costs, as damages, contravened the so-called “American rule”, which states that, in the absence of a particular contractual provision or applicable law, the parties bear their own legal costs to assert their contractual and other rights. But the court also rejected this argument, because “unlike defendants in other types of prosecutions, an accused in a lawsuit in violation of a federation does not lose the advantage of a good deal without recourse, if it is prohibited to bring an action for violation against a party that violates an explicit term of a contract.”  In other words, unlike the typical offence to which the U.S. rule applies, legal fees and court costs, contrary to the typical rule to which the U.S. rule applies, are the reference for actual damages in a contract, not the costs of pursuing damages in favour of a good case because of the violation of another promised benefit. An alliance, not to be appealed, was initially conceived as a means of avoiding the harshness of a general legal doctrine that an exemption does not only release the obligation of the housing debtor itself. Therefore, if you have settled a right with one of several joint debtors and granted discharge to that debtor, you have effectively released the full obligation and your right to sue the other complicit debtors for the remainder of the obligation not paid by the debtor of the facility. But if, instead of granting permission to the colonist, you have entered into a contract with that debtor in which you have agreed not to sue the debtor of the facility on the undertaking, avoid the rule that treats a discharge as the execution of the total undertaking. Over time, the harshness of this common rule vis-à-vis the liberating party has developed in most (but not all) states, but the payment of common debtors should always be prudent when it comes to filing a complaint with a liberating party who intends to pursue rights against debtors who do not default. , because these other debtors may have contribution and compensation rights against the settlement debtor.  However, after the term concluded Confederation, not because of the specific purpose of confrontation with a hard common law rule with common commitments, the concept began to find its way into liberation and transaction agreements in general, not as a substitute for a release (initial purpose), but in addition to a release and in circumstances that do not involve common commitments.