Download Free Using Alternative Dispute Resolution To Resolve Patent Litigation Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Using Alternative Dispute Resolution To Resolve Patent Litigation and write the review.

Seminar paper from the year 2013 in the subject Law - Civil / Private, Trade, Anti Trust Law, Business Law, grade: 1,1, Berlin School of Economics and Law, course: Internationalisierung von Wirtschaftsprozessen, language: English, abstract: Major cell phone manufacturers Apple and Samsung are currently accusing one another of infringing patents relating to their smartphones. The lawsuits simultaneously being carried out in several countries across the world are a burden to both companies. Due to the fact that the two stand in a crucial business relationship with each other, an alternative dispute resolution model may be appropriate. Methods such as mediation, arbitration and expert determination may be suitable. Patents are part of intellectual property protection and have grown in importance over the last decades. They protect an invention and can only be granted if certain criteria are met. However, patent holders litigate patent infringements in order to protect their competitive position. Alternative Dispute Resolution offers advantages such as a single procedure, autonomy of the parties, neutrality, finality of awards, confidentiality as well as enforceability, and has been known as a method of resolution since the 1980s. De-spite this, most international disputes are carried out in court, even though companies are aware that a trial is the least beneficial method. In the past, Apple had successfully negotiated patent litigation with several competitors, but initial attempts at Alternative Dispute Resolution have failed in the case of Apple and Samsung. However, it can still be carried next to court to find common ground and identify economic needs and interests that may support court litigation and direct it towards a beneficial outcome for both. In addition, it is advisable to implement an early-stage conflict management model for the future.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) encourages participants to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes during post grant proceedings to facilitate resolution of conflicts that have become exceedingly complex. The flexibility and benefits of ADR proceedings are based on the expertise of qualified neutrals such as experienced IP attorneys and former judges and magistrates who are uniquely equipped to evaluate IP issues and settle conflicts in a manner much more streamlined than a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding.Patent Neutral: Expanding Use of ADR for Settlement of Patent Disputes at the PTAB describes how these neutrals can be engaged to help parties more efficiently decide IP conflicts, particularly proceedings at the USPTO. In this concise guide, Author David L. Newman covers all essential aspects of using ADR to resolve these disputes at the PTAB, including:The full use of mediation and arbitration during proceedings at the PTABResolution of technology issues present in ongoing IP mattersPTAB criteria that favor or disfavor the use of ADRManaging confidentiality issuesUse of special masters, and moreEmploying new ADR processes, such as alternative licensing resolution and patent small claims court resolution systems, to streamline patent assertion and monetization effortsAnd more
This Brief introduces how alternative dispute resolution offers an alternative to formal court-based systems for tackling intellectual property disputes that may arise in relation to traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources.
This executive summary reveals the key findings from the WIPO-MCST survey on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to resolve business-to-business (B2B) disputes related to digital copyright and digital content.
Although an IP dispute can be resolved through court litigation, parties are, with increasing frequency, submitting disputes to mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures.
This valuable guide is a tool to teach lawyers, litigants, and judges what early neutral evaluation (ENE) consists of, why and under what circumstances it can be used most productively, the difference between it and mediation (in the forms most commonly encountered by litigants and lawyers), and how clients, litigators, and neutrals have been assessed the value of ENE.