1. bookVolume 26 (2021): Issue 5 (December 2021)
    Special issue
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2719-9452
First Published
01 Jan 2006
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English, Polish
access type Open Access

The Adoption of International Arbitration as the Preferred ADR Process in the Resolution of International Intellectual Property Disputes

Published Online: 17 Dec 2021
Volume & Issue: Volume 26 (2021) - Issue 5 (December 2021) - Special issue
Page range: 41 - 62
Received: 31 May 2021
Accepted: 30 Aug 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2719-9452
First Published
01 Jan 2006
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English, Polish
Abstract

This article, which is intended for arbitration practitioners, demonstrates that international arbitration as a subset of the field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers a useful toolkit for the expeditious resolution of international intellectual property law disputes. The article demonstrates how the theory and practice of international arbitration is particularly well poised to address some of the specific considerations and requirements of paramount concern to the international intellectual property lawyers and their clients. The article will explain how the inherent features of the international arbitration legal landscape combine to indicate that it should be considered as the preferred method of ADR and explain how each of these features can provide both time and cost efficiencies. The article will identify the legal reasoning behind the benefits inherent to choosing international arbitration and will also address those circumstances when international arbitration may be precluded or otherwise considered unsuitable for intellectual property matters. The article examines several distinct benefits that international arbitration uniquely offers to international intellectual property law users and highlights some areas of the field that require additional caution.

Keywords

Abram Landau Real Estate v. Bevonna, 123 F.3d 69, 73 (2d Cir. 1997). Search in Google Scholar

AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986). Search in Google Scholar

Bermann G. A., The ‘Gateway’ Problem in International Commercial Arbitration, “Yale Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 1, 37, no. 1. Search in Google Scholar

Blackaby R.N. et al., Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, Student Edition, Oxford 2009.10.1093/law:iic/9780199557189.001.1 Search in Google Scholar

Blanke G., Samsung Electronics offers arbitration commitment under article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, “Global Competition Litigation Review” 2014, vol. 7, no. 2. Search in Google Scholar

Born G.B., International Commercial Arbitration in The United States: Commentary and Materials, New York 1994. Search in Google Scholar

Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006). Search in Google Scholar

Certilman S.A., Lutsker J. E., Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes, (in:) T.D. Halket (ed.), Arbitration of Intellectual Property Disputes, Huntington, New York 2012. Search in Google Scholar

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2519, 330 U.N.T.S. 3. Search in Google Scholar

Cook T., Garcia A.I., Intellectual Property Arbitration, Netherlands 2010. Search in Google Scholar

David J.L., Harrison S., Edison in the Boardroom: How Leading Companies Realize Value From Their Intellectual Assets, Hoboken 2001. Search in Google Scholar

The DuPont Company’s Development of ADR Usage: From Theory to Practice, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/dispute_resolution_magazine/2014/spring/the-dupont-compans-development-of-adr-usage--from-theory-to-pra.html. Search in Google Scholar

Epstein J. et al., A Practical Guide to International Commercial Arbitration, Dobbs Ferry 2000. Search in Google Scholar

First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995). Search in Google Scholar

Fortune Magazine Global 500 2014, http://fortune.com/global500/dupont-320/. Search in Google Scholar

Fox Jr. W., International Commercial Agreements: A Primer on Drafting, Negotiating, and Resolving Disputes 3rd ed., The Hague 1998. Search in Google Scholar

Graves J.M., Competence-Competence and Separability – American Style, (in:) S. Kröllet et al. (eds.), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, Netherlands 2011. Search in Google Scholar

Harrison S.S., Sullivan Sr.P.H., United Einstein in the Boardroom – Moving Beyond Intellectual Capital to I-Stuff, United States 2006. Search in Google Scholar

Li X.,Ten Misconceptions About the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, (in:) X. Li, C.M. Correa (eds.), Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives, Northampton, MA 2009.10.4337/9781848449251 Search in Google Scholar

Lloreda, A., Exploring Alternative Dispute Resolution, (in:) L.G. Bryer et al. (eds.), Intellectual Property Strategies for the 21st Century Corporation: A Shift in Strategic and Financial Management, Hoboken 2011. Search in Google Scholar

Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth (2011) UKSC 39, (2012) 1 AC 208, (2011) 3 WLR 487 (appeal taken from Eng.). Search in Google Scholar

Mascarenhas V., Using ‘Baseball Arbitration’ to Resolve FRAND Disputes, “Corporate Counsel” 2015, http://www.kslaw.com/imageserver/KSPublic/library/publication/2015articles/2–11-15_CorpCounsel_Mascarenhas.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

McSherry C., Who Owns Academic Work?, Cambridge, MA 2001. Search in Google Scholar

Miller C. et al., The Handbook of Nanotechnology, Hoboken 2005, p. 254. Search in Google Scholar

Moses M.L., The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge 2008.10.1017/CBO9780511819216 Search in Google Scholar

Other relevant conventions http://www.newyorkconvention.org/other-relevant-conventions. Search in Google Scholar

Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967). Search in Google Scholar

Rent-a-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772, (2010). Search in Google Scholar

Riley Mfg. Co. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 157 F.3d 775, 779 (10th Cir. 1998). Search in Google Scholar

Ryder R.D., Madhavan A., Intellectual Property and Business: The Power of Intangible Assets, United States 2014.10.4135/9789351508021 Search in Google Scholar

Silverman A.E., Intellectual Property Law and the Venture Capital Process, “High Technology Law Journal” 1989, vol. 5, no. 1. Search in Google Scholar

Shaw P.D., Managing Legal and Security Risks in Computing and Communications, Oxford 1998. Search in Google Scholar

Shell G.R., Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effects of Commercial Arbitration, “UCLA Law Review” 1988, vol. 35. Search in Google Scholar

Smit R.H., General Commentary on the WIPO Arbitration Rules, Recommended Clauses, General Provisions and the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules: Articles 1 to 5; Articles 39 and 40, (in:) H. Smit (ed.), WIPO Arbitration Rules: Commentary and Analyses, Huntington, New York 2009. Search in Google Scholar

States parties to the New York Convention, http://www.newyorkconvention.org/new-york-convention-countries/contracting-states and http://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states/list-of-contracting-states. Search in Google Scholar

Sullivan P. H., Value-Drive Intellectual Capital: How to Convert Intangible Corporate Assets into Market Value, United States 2000. Search in Google Scholar

TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 320 (1999), 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994). Search in Google Scholar

Troller K., Intellectual Property Disputes in Arbitration, “Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management” 2006, vol. 72. Search in Google Scholar

U.N. Commission on International Trade Law, Report on its 39th Session, 19 June–7 July 2006, U.N. Doc.A/61/17 (14 July 2006), http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration_status.html. Search in Google Scholar

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as Approved by ICANN on 24 October 1999, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012–02-25-en. Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Code > Title 9 Arbitration > CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 1–16). Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Code > Title 9 Arbitration > CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS (§ 4). Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination. Search in Google Scholar

van den Berg A.J., The New York Convention of 1958: An Overview, pp. 6–9, http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12125884227980/new_york_convention_of_1958_overview.pdf. Search in Google Scholar

Waelde C. et al., Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy 3rd ed., Oxford 2013.10.1093/he/9780199671823.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Wheeler M., The Art of Negotiation: How to Improvise Agreement in a Chaotic World, United States 2013. Search in Google Scholar

Wing J.D., International Arbitration and Mediation The Professional’s Perspective, (in:) A. Alebekova, R. Carrow (eds.), International Arbitration and Mediation: From the Professional’s Perspective, United States 2007. Search in Google Scholar

WIPO Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for Intellectual Property Offices, Search in Google Scholar

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/ipoffices/. Search in Google Scholar

World Intellectual Property Organization, Why Arbitration in Intellectual Property?, http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/why-is-arb.html. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo