Intellectual property cases, like most commercial disputes,

start out in court but usually are resolved before trial. Given
the high cost and protracted nature of IP battles, arbitration
and mediation should be considered seriously as options to
take control of a dispute when it arises. This article focuses
on the key factors to evaluate when deciding whether to
arbitrate or mediate an IP dispute.
Intellectual Property
ADR vs. Litigation
T o p i c s c o v e r e
d
Arbitration
Mediation
hoosing a
!esolution Process
!esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$
%sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase
'y Alan (. )owalchyk
Mr. Kowalchyk is a senior vice president and director at the law firm of Merchant
!ould P.".# Minneapolis# practicing in the area of intellectual property law# with an
emphasis on patent litigation# client counseling and alternative dispute resolution.
$his article has %een adapted from the article of the same name pu%lished in the &Dispute
Resolution 'ournal# May('uly )**+,. $he views e-pressed herein are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily state the views of the firm of Merchant !ould P.".# or
any lawyer or client of the firm.
The vast ma*ority of intellectual property litigation, especially cases involving copyright, patent
and trademark infringement claims
+
takes place in the federal courts. ,ike most cases that
set out upon the litigation path, intellectual property cases are most often settled before trial-
the number of cases actually tried in court is small. In .//., for e0ample, slightly more than
1,2// intellectual property disputes were disposed of by federal district courts.
.
,ess than
two percent of these cases went through a trial to verdict.
3
!egardless of when intellectual property lawsuits are settled, the cost of litigating is e0tremely
high. A recent survey published by the American Intellectual Property ,aw Association
reported that a party incurs about 4..5 million in legal fees and costs in an average patent6
infringement case, which usually involves claims for damages between 4+64.7 million.
2
More
than half
of this sum8about 4+.29 million8is incurred up to the completion of discovery. Trademark,
copyright and trade secret cases tend to cost somewhat less than patent cases because they are
less technical. 'ut even these cases can run into the high si0 figures or more when potential
damages are large :i.e., e0ceeding 4+ million;, there are comple0 legal issues and<or a
lengthy trial is anticipated.
7
=ot only is litigation e0pensive, it is a liability on the
balance sheet for as long as the lawsuit e0ists, which can
be a decade or more in patent cases that are appealed and
then retried.
5
A more practical problem is that litigation
continually drains a company>s cash flow. And litigation
is so very public.
?o, when your client is faced with enforcing8or
ac@uiescing to8an intellectual property right, the @uestion
A?hould you advise the company to step into the ringBC
should be asked because there are alternative, less public
and less costly ways of resolving many intellectual
property disputes. The most common are arbitration and
mediation, which are distinctly different alternative
dispute resolution :A"!; processes.
Arbitration
Arbitration is an ad*udicative process that, like a trial, has
a third party decide the dispute. Thus, arbitration is a form
of private *udging. 'ecause arbitration is a creature of
contract, it has a ma*or advantage over litigation$ the
parties can select a decision maker with e0pertise in the
type of intellectual property dispute involved. Arbitration
also has other advantages over litigation. It is potentially
less costly and faster because$
D it is less formal than litigation,
D it allows for less discovery,
D *udicial rules of evidence typically do not apply,
D the arbitrator>s award is final, binding and
enforceable in court, and
D there are limited appeal rights.
The parties bear the costs of arbitration and the arbitrator>s
to this agreement.C Eaving this clause can lower the
temperature of the parties> potentially heated reactions,
which can distract them from ob*ective decision making
after a dispute arises.
If there is no A"! clause in the relevant documents, the
parties can agree to arbitrate post dispute. Eowever, by
that time the parties usually are so at odds with each other
that they are less likely to agree on anything.
The cost of not having a pre6dispute clause is that if
litigation is commenced, the court might re@uire the case
to be arbitrated or mediated before a court6appointed
neutral under a court6referred A"! program. This
obviously takes the decision making about the process
of resolving their intellectual property dispute out of
the parties> hands.
Private commercial arbitration allows the parties to have
that control. ?ignificantly, it allows them to decide on the
rules and procedures that will apply to their arbitration.
In most cases, parties agree to have their arbitration
proceedings administered by an established, neutral
arbitration provider, such as the American Arbitration
Association :AAA;, which has well6tested arbitration
rules8including specialiFed rules for patent disputes8
and acts as an intermediary with respect to neutral
compensation issues.
Arbitration rules tend to be fle0ible and give great
discretion to the arbitrator to manage the proceedings.
Gven when agreeing to arbitration under AAA rules,
parties can ad*ust the rules to meet their needs.
1
'ecause
the arbitration agreement governs the arbitral process,
parties need to pay considerable attention to the terms
of that agreement to increase the likelihood that the
fees. The latter are generally billed at an hourly rate and
can be @uite high. Eowever, because arbitration is usually
a shorter process than litigation, overall costs are usually
lower. In addition, limits on the scope of discovery and
the right to appeal curtail the costs of arbitration.
commencing Arbitration
Eow do parties enter into arbitrationB It is prudent to use
a pre6dispute A"! clause providing for arbitration in the
transaction documents, such as a patent royalty license.
The A"! clause usually states that the parties agree to
arbitrate Aany and all disputes arising out of or related
dispute will be resolved without the need for litigation.
H
issues in Arbitration that
encourage speed and
Flexibility
At the onset of the arbitration, the arbitrator schedules a
pre6hearing conference with the parties at which the
arbitration schedule, discovery and other procedural
matters are discussed and decided. The fle0ibility of
arbitration allows for alternatives. Ior e0ample, at the
hearing that is held on the merits of the case, the matter
of how evidence will be introduced invariably arises.
An arbitrator who is cogniFant of the duty under AAA
pa g e . !esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$ %sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase
rules to conduct a fair hearing while e0pediting the
resolution of the case
9
might urge the parties to
consider having their e0perts testify together and use
witness statements for less important direct testimony.
In most cases, discovery can be better controlled and
usually is completed much faster in arbitration than in
litigation. 'ecause court rules allow discovery of AallC
relevant evidence, intellectual property lawsuits,
especially patent cases, tend to involve wide6ranging
discovery, including many depositions. Arbitration
rules are usually silent on the matter of depositions.
The parties may provide for depositions in their A"!
clause, or they can agree during the pre6hearing
conference on a modest number of depositions of the
most important witnesses. The arbitrator will promptly
decide any discovery disputes that arise.
Patent cases are particularly technical, so a *ury trial can
take weeks. An arbitration hearing on the merits of a patent
case usually takes less time :even though the hearing is
unlikely to be completed in one day;. In arbitration, parties
are advised to focus on the most relevant evidence and
avoid introducing repetitive or cumulative evidence.
There is more fle0ibility in scheduling the arbitration
hearing than that of getting on the court docket.
Iurthermore, arbitration hearings are not marred by
interruptions of the kind that occur in court when the
*udge is suddenly called upon to hear an unrelated matter.
At the end of the hearing on the merits, the arbitrator will
issue a written award, which may be accompanied by an
opinion or brief e0planation of the rationale for the award.
The parties can ask for a written opinion in their arbitration
agreement or at a pre6hearing conference.
Appeal rights in Arbitration
Arbitration is a binding process in which one party may
AwinC all claims and the other Alose.C Eowever, similar
to a court proceeding, arbitrators may reach different
findings on different claims and counterclaims. ?o while
arbitration is considered to be a Awin6loseC process, the
outcome really depends on the merits of each claim
and counterclaim.
There is no automatic right to appeal an arbitration award.
Parties are limited to the grounds set forth in the Iederal
Arbitration Act, since almost all intellectual property cases
involve interstate commerce.
+/
Parties can sidestep the lack of appeal rights by agreeing
to non6binding arbitration. That is not common because
if one party re*ects the award and the case ultimately
proceeds to court, the large legal fees that both parties
initially hoped to avoid would be incurred.
Mediation
%nlike arbitration, mediation is not an ad*udicative process-
it is facilitative in nature. Mediation involves the parties in
a dialogue concerning the disputed issues. Gstablishing who
is right and who is wrong on the issues is not the focus of
mediation$ The goal is to seek business solutions acceptable
to both sides through negotiation, compromise and creative
problem solving.
The mediator>s role is to facilitate communication between
the parties and help them consider a variety of solutions
to all or part of the issues in dispute. These solutions can
involve alternative or additional business arrangements,
including cross6licensing and *oint development of new,
improved or collateral products. There is no limit on the
amount of creativity that can be used in crafting potential
solutions, *ust the parties> willingness to consider them.
Thus, in mediation, the mediator does not decide
substantive issues. ?o in a patent dispute, one should not
e0pect to have a decision by the mediator on such issues as
whether the defendant infringed the patent, whether
the patent was valid or whether the plaintiff actually
owned the patent. ?imilarly, in a trademark case, the
mediator will not decide the likelihood of confusion
between trademarks or whether the plaintiff was the
first to use the trademark and where. These are difficult
issues with large financial conse@uences, and the parties
may not be able to agree on them. Ior this reason, some
attorneys do not recommend mediation to their clients.
Eowever, it can be useful to mediate if only to determine
what the disputed issues are and perhaps reduce
their number.
commencing Mediation
Intellectual property disputes are mediated if the A"!
clause in the transaction documents re@uires it. An A"!
clause commonly provides that in the event of a dispute,
the parties agree to use mediation first- if they cannot
reach an agreement, then they may proceed to arbitration.
pa g e 3 !esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$ %sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase
If there is no A"! clause in the relevant documents and
litigation has been commenced, mediation still can take
place because the parties can agree to mediate while the
lawsuit is pending. Many courts have court6anne0ed
mediation programs that allow them to direct all or most
cases to mediation conducted by a magistrate *udge or
private individual on the court>s roster of mediators.
?ome courts have intellectual property specialists on
their rosters. Generally speaking, in court6anne0ed
mediation, parties do not have the ability to select their
preferred mediator.
A key advantage of private mediation is that parties can
work with a mediator they have chosen, whom they trust
and respect. This is important because for mediation to
be successful, the parties must be willing to discuss
highly sensitive and often proprietary information with
the mediator.
special expertise and co-Mediators
Parties to intellectual property disputes can decide whether
or not the mediator should have special technical e0pertise.
Team mediators are sometimes utiliFed in disputes over
the use of intellectual property, the advantage being more
e0pertise at the mediation table. Ior e0ample, one mediator
may have e0pertise in the field of the disputed technology
:such as computer chips;, and the other may have useful
e0perience in consensus building or the relevant field of
law, i.e., patents, copyrights or trademarks.
%sing co6mediators is more costly but can eliminate the
need for the parties to retain even more costly e0perts
in a field in which a co6mediator has e0pertise. Ior
e0ample, if a co6mediator has e0pertise in preparing
patent applications and %. ?. Patent #ffice procedures,
the parties might feel confident that the nuances of
their positions on issues related to these areas would
be understood without an e0pert>s assistance.
hoosing a !esolution Process
'oth arbitration and mediation are consensual and private
processes, affording parties a greater degree of control
than in litigation.
In arbitration, parties decide which procedures to use as
well as who the arbitrator is. They also have the ability,
through the use of confidentiality agreements, to limit
public
disclosure of the e0istence of an arbitration and what
occurs during and as a result of the process. These
agreements augment statutory protections. Eowever, one
must bear
in mind that J .92 of the federal patent law dictates that
an arbitration award relating to a patent is not enforceable
until the Patent #ffice is given notice of the award.
++
In mediation, parties control who the mediator is and
certain terms, such as the time limit for completion of
mediation. In comple0 IP cases, it is prudent to consider a
time limit for mediation because one party could unduly
delay
the process and thereby preclude a resolution. More
importantly, the parties control the outcome of mediation
because they decide whether to settle or not.
initial considerations in
selecting Litigation
Alternatives
The knowledgeable use of litigation alternatives cannot
occur unless both parties to the IP dispute understand
their business goals. "o they know why they are fighting
and what each wants to accomplishB Is the goal a public
victory in court or to crush the competitionB Maybe
what they really want is to put the litigation behind them
and get back to business- maybe they want to control their
litigation costs.
Ior e0ample, before choosing a process to resolve a patent
dispute, a plaintiff should consider the potential returns
from litigation, including the available damages and how
much product e0clusivity will be available under the scope
of claim coverage provided by the patent. A defendant
should consider the likelihood that it will have to pay
damages,
the amount of such damages and whether product changes
can be made to minimiFe or eliminate the dispute.
Given the costs, time and uncertainty of IP litigation, many
issues may be better addressed using A"! approaches
such as arbitration or mediation.
The competition in high6value technology areas like
pharmaceuticals and medical devices is so fierce that in
many cases traditional civil litigation is heavily relied on
to achieve business goals. It is not rare for these cases to
involve +/ or more patents, which inevitably entangles the
parties in a long and costly process with uncertain results.
Attorneys should @uestion whether it is necessary for their
clients to take this path in every IP dispute.
pa g e 2 !esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$ %sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase
?ince the Iederal !ules of ivil Procedure re@uire courts
to consider the potential for settlement in each case,
+.
before filing a lawsuit, counsel should raise with the client
whether mediation or arbitration8or both se@uentially8
would be a more productive way to achieve the client>s
commercial goals. lients should also be asked to research
earlier trademark and patent licenses and litigation settle6
ment agreements with the adversary to determine whether
any of them re@uire the use of A"! to resolve future dis6
putes arising out of new or related technology.
?ome IP cases clearly should go the litigation route$ cases
that present novel legal issues, where a legal precedent
is desired for future enforcement efforts and where
court6supervised discovery may be necessary because
of the level of detail needed to obtain critical facts
regarding the development of an invention. Iull discovery
and court involvement may be re@uired in some cases
when dealing with issues like multiple contributions to
an invention, propriety of conduct or the timing of a
competing inventor>s efforts.
'ut many IP cases do not raise novel issues or are not
potentially precedent setting. Thus, it is important to
make a determination in almost every case as to whether
mediation and<or arbitration would be preferable to
litigation. Making this determination depends on a number
of factors. In some cases, one factor may be so dominant
that it determines which form of dispute resolution is best.
In other cases, several factors taken together may weigh
in favor of one process over another. The factors to be
considered are addressed below.
size and importance of the dispute
Many litigators believe that IP disputes involving large
amounts of damages, comple0 legal issues and e0tensive
e0pert testimony are not suited for mediation or
arbitration.
+3
This is too simplistic. There is no reason
to allow the amount of money at stake to rule out
arbitration or mediation.
If the financial resources of the aggrieved party are limited,
litigation is likely to @uickly eat up those resources,
leaving this party without a resolution and without funds.
In these circumstances, mediation is a sensible alternative
and should be considered first.
Many litigators and business e0ecutives believe that when
a company>s survival is at stake, the dispute should be
litigated. Eowever, both arbitration and mediation
allow for confidential treatment of the parties> financial
data, business6planning information and development
work
+2
8protection not available in litigation, at least once
the trial begins. Protective orders typically are effective
only during the discovery phase of litigation, an important
factor to consider when trade secrets or highly competitive
businesses are involved in a dispute. Parties may not want
to discuss their proprietary information in court in front
of competitors who fre@uently monitor IP trials precisely
in order to learn about a competitor>s business. Mediation
and arbitration do not take place in public. Thus, A"!
should not be ignored *ust because an IP case is monetarily
large, comple0 and important.
international disputes
Intellectual property cases that are international in scope
are particularly well suited for arbitration or mediation.
Arbitration is a well6established dispute resolution
mechanism for international commercial disputes, and
mediation is well known in many Asian countries :often
known there as conciliation;. Mediation is also attracting
attention in the Guropean %nion, where there is now a
push to use mediation before another adversarial process.
+7
The reasons for acceptance of A"! in the international
business community include, among others, a lack of
confidence in national courts- unfamiliarity with foreign
laws- concern about long, costly court proceedings-
unpredictable and possibly inconsistent outcomes- and
difficulties with enforcing *udgments obtained in foreign
countries. These considerations are especially applicable
in international IP disputes, since IP rights are issued on a
country6by6country basis. %sing international arbitration
makes it unnecessary to litigate in multiple affected
*urisdictions having unfamiliar procedures, different
legal protections for IP rights and different
enforcement mechanisms.
+5
'y arbitrating a multinational IP dispute in a single dispute
resolution process, the parties can save money and time
and obtain a consistent result.
+1
pa g e 7 !esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$ %sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase
Need for Technical expertise
Another factor bearing on how best to resolve a particular
intellectual property dispute is the technical comple0ity
and need for technical e0pertise.
+H
"istrict court *udges
and *uries tend not to be e0perts in IP and the technologies
involved in patent cases. onsiderable time is needed to
bring them up to speed on such matters as the technical
background :i.e., the state of the art before the patented
invention;- the nomenclature of the technical field- the
teachings in prior patents and publications- and the
advantages of the patent invention.
In arbitration, the parties can select an arbitrator who has
the relevant technical IP e0pertise. It is far easier to
educate this type of arbitrator about the case than a district
court *udge and *ury. An e0perienced patent arbitrator
familiar with Aclaim interpretationC issues will more
@uickly appreciate the important technical terminology and
be
able to more efficiently review and decide the case. In
addition, an e0perienced patent arbitrator tends to have
more time available than a *udge to evaluate the sub*ect
matter of the patent and prior patents, publications and
products :i.e., prior art; that bear on whether the patent
represents a valid, enforceable advance in the technology.
Irom the parties> points of view, knowing that the decision
maker understands the technology and the guiding
principles of intellectual property law can elevate their
confidence in the process because they are ensured that
their positions and technical and scientific arguments
are AheardC and considered. This is important because in
federal court, the *udge, serving as the AgatekeeperC of the
technical and scientific evidence admissible in evidence,
+9
is responsible for determining the relevance and reliability
of proposed e0pert testimony. The *udge may decide to
disallow particular e0pert evidence that one party
considers vital to its case.
Introducing technical and scientific arguments and
evidence is usually easier in arbitration. The arbitrators
typically do not preclude the introduction of an e0pert>s
point of view based on specific reliability criteria. ?o if
e0tensive technical e0pertise is important to the resolution
of a case, arbitration should be seriously considered as
an alternative to litigation.
cost and Time savings
The timesaving in mediation and arbitration usually results
from the greater informality and fle0ibility of these
processes over litigation and the limitations on discovery.
./
importance of the parties relationship
Mediation is noted for preserving business relationships.
Parties with an ongoing business relationship may have
a past intellectual property agreement that provides for
arbitration of disputes. If they don>t, but they want to
continue their relationship, mediation is the best choice
to resolve the dispute.
Parties with an ongoing business relationship know about
each other>s business and can appreciate each other>s
needs and interests, which is why it is beneficial to
consider early mediation over litigation and arbitration.
Although many technology companies operate in a
competitive environment that is not conducive to a Atalk
firstC approach, mediation can facilitate keeping business
goals in focus and reducing the hostility that often
accompanies litigation.
Provided a party protects its litigation options, there is
rarely any downside to mediating a patent or trademark
case, regardless of the parties> past relationship. (hether
a product infringes on a patent claim or on a trademark
for a certain product can be confusing and very fact
specific. ?o the best time to mediate may be after the
most important facts are uncovered through discovery,
since it is at that time that the parties often feel they
have sufficient information to e0plore mutually
beneficial outcomes.
control issues
Arbitration provides the most control over the process.
Parties decide what the arbitrator>s @ualifications should be
and specifically who will serve as the arbitrator. They can
select the rules that will apply, the place of arbitration and
the substantive law that will govern. They work with the
arbitrator to determine the pre6hearing procedures
:including the scope of discovery; and the length of the
hearings. "uring this process, the arbitrator will try to
create efficiencies in order to e0pedite a fair resolution
of the dispute.
pa g e 5 !esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$ %sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase
Mediation provides the parties with the greatest amount of
control over the resolution of their dispute. The parties
control the length of the process, the place of mediation,
the information to be considered and the type of mediator.
The parties can select a mediator who is AfacilitativeC
or Aevaluative.C ommercial parties often prefer an
evaluative mediator with relevant sub*ect matter e0perience
because they want to hear how the mediator thinks a court
or arbitrator would consider issues and<or claims in the
case. The mediator>s views often increase the seriousness
with which settlement proposals and counterproposals are
considered. Iurthermore, in mediation, parties can agree
to business solutions that could not be granted by a court.
!egardless of the type of mediator chosen to facilitate
resolution of the dispute, or the suggestions the mediator
offers for consideration, the parties cannot be forced to
agree to a settlement that they do not want.
onclusion
It is becoming apparent to more and more business
organiFations that the benefits of A"! are substantial
and often outweigh the traditional values of vindication
that have led many to use litigation to handle IP cases.
,itigation makes huge headlines but rarely satisfies
business goals. It depletes cash flow, is a liability on
the balance sheet and offers uncertain results even in
the best situations.
Given the high cost and protracted nature of intellectual
property litigation, early and careful evaluation of how
best to meet business goals involving intellectual property
rights is essential. In many cases, mediation and<or
arbitration can handle IP resolution issues better and more
cost effectively than litigation.
pa g e 1 !esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$ %sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase
e N d N o T e s
+
). /.0.". 11 2332# 233.4a56 see# e.g.# 37 /.0.". 11 )82# ).)().76 27 /.0.". 1 2229 et se:.# 22)74a56 28 /.0.". 1 7*2 et se:.
.
Motivans# ;ederal 'ustice 0tatistics Program# Intellectual Property $heft# )**)6 <ureau of 'ustice 0tatistics 0pecial
Report# =ct. )**9# p. . 4reporting disposal of 8#997 copyright# patent and trademark cases5.
3
Id.# reporting a further %reakdown of intellectual property disputes resolved %y trial verdict in )**) with patent cases 3.)>#
copyright cases 2.7># and trademark cases 2.)>. Id. =f the intellectual property cases terminated %y trial# +2> were disposed of %y
?ury verdict# with ?uries deciding +@> of the patent trials# +9> of copyright trials# and 9+> of trademark trials. Id. =f the )**) cases
terminated
%y trial# plaintiffs were winners 7@> of the time. Id.
2
American Intellectual Property Law Association Report of the Aconomic 0urvey )**7# at I(2*@.
7
Id. at 222()*.
5
0ee# e.g.# !rain Processing "orp. v. American MaiBe Products "o.# 2.7 ;.3d 2392 4;ed. "ir. 2@@@5 4patent infringement case
originally filed in 2@.2 with federal circuit opinion addressing appealed damages issues in 2@@@56 0ee also Rite(Cite "orp. v. Kelley
"o. Inc.#
7+ ;.3d 73. 4;ed. "ir. 2@@75 4patent infringement case initially filed in 2@.3 with damages issues e-tending appeals over 2* years5.
1
AAA Rule 24a5.
H
0ee# e.g.# &Ar%itration "lause "hecklist#, in Alternative Dispute ResolutionDCow to /se it to Eour AdvantageF# 329(
)9 4ALI(A<A "ourse Materials# =cto%er )***5.
9
0ee AAA Rules R(3*4a5 4%5.
+/
@ /.0.". 1 2*.
++
37 /.0.". 1 )@94e5# providing &$he award shall %e unenforcea%le until the notice re:uired %y su%section 4d5 is received %y the
Director., 0ection 4d5 providesG
Hhen an award is made %y an ar%itrator# the patentee# his assignee or licensee shall give notice thereof in writing to the Director. $here
shall %e a separate notice prepared for each patent involved in such proceeding. 0uch notice shall set forth the names and addresses of
the parties# the name of the inventor# and the name of the patent owner# shall designate the num%er of the patent# and shall contain a
copy of the award. If an award is modified %y a court# the party re:uesting such modification shall give notice of such modification to the
Director. $he Director shall# upon receipt of either notice# enter the same in the record of the prosecution of such patent. If the re:uired
notice is not filed with the Director# any party to the proceeding may provide such notice to the Director.
+.
;ed. R. "iv. P. 2+4a5475 4c54@5.
+3
0ee &Alternatives to "ourt Litigation in Intellectual Property DisputesG <inding Ar%itration andIor MediationDPatent and Jon(Patent
Issues#, )) IDAA )82# )83(87 42@.)5.
+2
$om Arnold et al.# &Managing Patent Disputes $hrough Ar%itration#, 9+ Ar%. '. 7(+ 40eptem%er 2@@256 see also Arnold#
&Intellectual Property Disputes, in Alternative Dispute ResolutionG $he LitigatorKs Cand%ook# ch. 29# )32# )93 4Jacy Atlas et al
eds. A<A 0ection of Litigation )***5 4chapter 29 comments on the advantages of ADR for intellectual property disputes5.
+7
httpGIIeu r opa.eu.intIeurle-IenI comIpdfI)**9Icom)**9L*82.en*2. pdf.
+5
&Intellectual Property Disputes#, supra n. 27# at )9).
+1
Id.
+H
0ee Arnold et al.# supra n. 27.
+9
Dau%ert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals# 7*@ /.0. 78@ 42@@35.
./
0ee Arnold et al.# supra n. 27# at 7(+.
pa g e H !esolving Intellectual Property "isputes #utside of ourt$ %sing A"! to Take ontrol of &our ase