Alternative Dispute Resolution
Litigation is not always the best solution, as it can become costly and is driven by a complex set of procedural rules that must be followed. Alternative Dispute Resolution, or ADR, provides other options. If for at least a period of time, both parties can agree that litigation is not a constructive way to resolve a dispute, that presents an opportunity for the ADR process. There are numerous forms of ADR; which is applicable typically depends on the situation. Our attorneys know the various ADR processes and can help you craft a forum for resolving your IP dispute that operates outside the regular constraints of the court system.
The benefits of ADR are numerous — why it is increasingly used and even formally integrated into the legal procedures that courts require litigants to follow. The main benefits of ADR are:
- Flexible Procedures — The process is controlled by the parties to the dispute.
- Lower Costs — Both parties save on costs that would otherwise be expended to comply with court procedures.
- Less Complexity — The rules for ADR are simpler than for matters in court.
- Expert Resolution — Parties have their choice of a neutral third party to facilitate a resolution, and they can select someone with expertise in the field. For complex IP matters, this ability to involve a qualified, neutral party is critical.
- Confidentiality — The matter can be kept out of the public record.
- Binding Outcomes — If the parties consent, the outcome is binding; durable agreements result.
The ADR process is rather straightforward:
Step 1. Select which ADR mechanism to utilize. The choices are:
- Negotiation: The parties resolve the dispute without legal counsel.
- Mediation: Legal counsel present the matter to a third party for a decision. In Collaborative Law, the attorneys for each side facilitate the resolution process.
- Arbitration: The matter is presented to an arbitrator, usually a retired judge or an expert in the field.
Step 2. Select the people best suited to resolve the dispute. In IP matters — inherently technical and complex — the choice of people involved in the ADR process is critical. Their technical background and experience play a key role in resolving the dispute with efficiency.
Step 3. Present the facts and legal arguments in the selected forum and work to agree upon a resolution to the matter.
A Patent Infringers Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Does Not Negate the Requisite Intent for Induced Infringement
Commil and Cisco in wonderland – a curious case of “and”, being read as an “or”, inspite of explicit instructions to read otherwise. The Supreme Court in Commil v. Cisco, held patent infringers good-faith belief of invalidity does not negate the requisite intent for induced infringement. The Supreme Court also held mental state required in […]
Posted on June 22, 2015
Contentious and Unprofessional Discovery Conduct Risks Attorney Ban and Close of Discovery for that Side
In our modern era of litigation, certain attorneys are either unable or unwilling to engage in professional conduct with their opponents. Fed up with counsel’s obnoxious behavior, Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker, issued a scathing order chastising counsel for both sides in the US Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S et al, 3-13-cv-00864 (WIWD December 11, […]
Posted on December 15, 2014
Nebraska Attorney General Sanctioned $825,000 for Baseless Pursuit Against Patent Trolls
Nebraska Senior United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an attorneys fees award against the Nebraska Attorney General (“AG”) for $825,000 as a result of the AG’s efforts to stop Plaintiff’s patent licensing program. The Attorney General had been investigating Plaintiff on the basis that its patent enforcement activities may have violated Nebraska Unfair Competition Act and the Nebraska Deceptive […]
Posted on December 12, 2014