Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri On January 28, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals re-interpreted the parameters of fiduciary duty and the breach thereof in relation to third party sublicensing and clarified what was necessary for a fiduciary duty to exist.[1] In the case of Belliveau v. Barco, Inc., the Fifth Circuit ruled that the defendant in this case did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff as there was no formal fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and the Defendant’s in-house counsel despite Plaintiff’s claims of in-house counsel allegedly agreeing to act at his discretion on matters