On 1 March 2018, new arbitration rules of the German Institution of Arbitration (“Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit“, “DIS”) will come into force. The revised DIS Rules are designed to suit the needs of both domestic and international parties. They also aim to enhance the efficiency of arbitration, providing proceedings that are non-bureaucratic, flexible and open to party autonomy.

IP arbitration is a growing trend. Parties to a licensing agreement, to a technology transfer agreement or even competitors fighting over the amount of FRAND royalties for a Standard Essential Patent may wish to refer their dispute to arbitration to keep the dispute confidential and to have IP experts solve the matter as arbitrators. The DIS arbitration rules are not specific to any sector or type of dispute and are also suitable for IP disputes.

View the key amendments to the DIS arbitration rules in the following article by our Arbitration experts Dr. Mark C. Hilgard, Dr. Jan Kraayvanger, Armineh Gharibian, Dr. Nadine Pieper und Ana Bruder:

 

busy Street scene with neon signs in Hong KongIntellectual Property (“IP”) rights are only as strong as the means to enforce them. Arbitration, as a private and confidential procedure, is increasingly being used to resolve disputes involving IP rights, especially when the dispute is between parties located in different jurisdictions. With the introduction of the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2016 (“Bill”), the Hong Kong government hopes this will give it an edge over competing arbitral seats in the region. The main effect of the Bill would be that enforcement of an award under Part 10 of the Ordinance would not be refused in Hong Kong under either the arbitrability ground or the public policy ground merely because the award involved IP rights.

The Scope of the Bill

The Bill has been in the pipeline for almost two years. It sets out a broad definition of IP rights to include, inter alia, rights to confidential information, trade secrets or know-how, rights to protect goodwill by way of passing off or similar actions against unfair competition. The bill clarifies that all disputes relating to the subsistence, scope, validity, ownership as well as infringement of IP rights are arbitrable. This includes the right to put the validity of a patent in issue in arbitral proceedings. The Bill includes a provision clarifying that an award relating to IP rights does not cover a licensee (whether or not an exclusive licensee) who is not a party to the arbitral proceedings. A licensee is, however, not prohibited from commencing arbitration proceedings without the owner of the IP being a party to the proceedings

All of the major arbitration centers, such as the International Court of Arbitration, the London Court of International Arbitration and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center have adapted their arbitration rules to better suit IP disputes. As a result, the number of IP cases being heard by these centres continues to rise.

Conclusion

The international arbitration of IP disputes is on the rise, although it is still not as widely used to resolve disputes compared to other sectors (e.g., construction, energy and oil and gas). Hopefully the introduction of the Bill will reinforce the use of arbitration as a means to resolve IP disputes, as well as help consolidate Hong Kong’s position as an IP international dispute resolution centre.

Click here to read the full Mayer Brown JSM Asia IP & TMT: Quarterly Review (2016 Q4).

 

This article was originally published on AllAboutIP – Mayer Brown’s  blog on relevant developments in the fields of intellectual property and unfair competition law. For intellectual property-themed videos, Mayer Brown has launched a dedicated channel available here.