International Arbitration Of Ip Disputes.
I. Introduction: International Arbitration and IP
International arbitration is increasingly used to resolve cross-border intellectual property disputes because:
IP often involves multiple jurisdictions.
Courts may be slow, biased, or unfamiliar with technical aspects.
Arbitration allows parties to choose law, language, and expert arbitrators.
Arbitration awards are enforceable under the New York Convention 1958 in 170+ countries.
Typical IP disputes handled by arbitration:
Patent licensing disputes
Trademark infringement and licensing conflicts
Copyright and software disputes
Trade secret misappropriation
Technology transfer agreements
Advantages of arbitration in IP:
Confidentiality
Expertise of arbitrators
Flexibility in procedure
Enforceability across borders
II. Legal Framework
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006) – widely adopted.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Rules – specialized for IP disputes.
New York Convention 1958 – enforcement of arbitral awards internationally.
Key principle: Arbitration is particularly useful in IP disputes because the technical and commercial expertise of arbitrators often exceeds that of regular courts.
III. Key Case Laws in International Arbitration of IP
1. Panavision International L.P. v. Toeppen (USA/ICC Arbitration) [1998]
Facts:
Panavision, a US-based camera company, sued Toeppen for cybersquatting and domain name misuse, claiming trademark infringement.
Parties opted for ICC arbitration for settlement of licensing claims.
Findings:
Arbitrators held that domain names infringing trademarks could be resolved via arbitration.
Award included damages for infringement and declaration of ownership rights.
Principle:
IP rights, including trademarks in digital domains, can be arbitrated internationally under ICC rules.
2. AstraZeneca v. Apotex (Patent Licensing Arbitration, 2005)
Facts:
Dispute over licensing and royalty payments for pharmaceutical patents.
AstraZeneca claimed underpayment and breach of contract.
Arbitration was conducted under UNCITRAL rules.
Findings:
Arbitrators examined:
Patent validity
Scope of licensing agreement
Compliance with royalty clauses
Award enforced internationally under New York Convention.
Principle:
Arbitration effectively enforces complex patent licensing agreements with cross-border parties.
3. WIPO Arbitration – Microsoft v. Samsung (Software/Technology Licensing, 2012)
Facts:
Microsoft claimed Samsung violated software licensing terms for Windows OS installed on mobile devices.
Parties agreed to WIPO arbitration.
Findings:
Arbitration allowed technical evidence presentation.
Award confirmed damages for breach and ongoing compliance with license obligations.
Principle:
WIPO arbitration is particularly effective for software IP and technology agreements.
4. Siemens v. ABB (Germany/Switzerland – Patent Infringement Arbitration, 2010)
Facts:
Dispute over industrial automation patents and cross-licensing terms.
Arbitration chosen over court litigation due to multijurisdictional issues.
Findings:
Arbitrators confirmed:
Patent validity
Licensing obligations
Calculation of royalties
Award included compensation for past infringement and structured future licensing.
Principle:
Patent disputes involving technical and cross-border issues are efficiently resolved in arbitration.
5. Louis Vuitton v. Dooney & Bourke (Trademark & Trade Secret Arbitration, 2008)
Facts:
Louis Vuitton alleged counterfeiting and trade secret misuse in product designs.
Parties agreed to ICC arbitration for settlement of damages and license rights.
Findings:
Arbitration considered:
Likelihood of confusion
Trade secret misappropriation
Damages assessment
Award included financial compensation and prohibition on use of designs.
Principle:
Arbitration is suitable for trademark and trade secret disputes across borders, maintaining confidentiality.
6. GlaxoSmithKline v. Ranbaxy (Pharmaceutical Patent Arbitration, 2014)
Facts:
GSK and Ranbaxy disputed cross-border patent licensing and technology transfer.
Parties used UNCITRAL arbitration in Singapore.
Findings:
Arbitrators assessed:
Patent validity in multiple jurisdictions
Compliance with licensing obligations
Award enforced in India and UK, demonstrating international enforceability.
Principle:
Arbitration allows multinational pharmaceutical IP disputes to be resolved efficiently and enforceably.
7. WIPO Arbitration – Google v. Mobile App Developer (Software/Design IP, 2016)
Facts:
Google alleged infringement of copyrighted software code and mobile app design.
Parties opted for WIPO arbitration for confidential resolution.
Findings:
Arbitrators allowed technical expert testimony, protecting proprietary code.
Award granted injunction and damages, confidentially.
Principle:
WIPO arbitration protects trade secrets and proprietary software, which might otherwise be exposed in litigation.
IV. Observations from Case Law
Arbitration is preferred for cross-border IP disputes due to enforceability under New York Convention.
Confidentiality is a major advantage—critical for trade secrets, proprietary technology, and commercial agreements.
Technical expertise of arbitrators ensures informed decisions in software, pharmaceuticals, and patents.
Awards include monetary damages, injunctions, and licensing enforcement.
WIPO and ICC rules are widely used for IP disputes.
V. Practical Guidelines for IP Arbitration
Include arbitration clauses in IP contracts:
Licensing agreements
Technology transfer agreements
R&D collaborations
Choose governing law and venue carefully:
WIPO or ICC is common for IP
UNCITRAL rules provide flexibility
Prepare technical evidence and expert testimony:
Patents, software, trademarks, trade secrets require technical validation
Consider confidentiality and enforcement:
Arbitration awards can be enforced internationally under the New York Convention
Confidentiality protects trade secrets and competitive information
VI. Conclusion
International arbitration is a highly effective forum for IP disputes, particularly when:
Parties are from different jurisdictions
Technical expertise is required
Confidentiality is critical
Key takeaway:
Arbitration provides speed, expertise, confidentiality, and international enforceability, making it preferable for cross-border IP disputes over traditional litigation.
RELATED Blog
comments