Optimising Mediation for Intellectual Property Law – Perspectives from EU, French and UK Law

Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

A bad compromise is better than a successful lawsuit, says an adage. Would this also apply to intellectual property disputes? Mediation is a dispute resolution method, which is in vogue. It became subject to harmonisation in Europe under Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. In this context, the objective of the article is to analyse the functions performed by mediation as well as the limitations to mediation from the viewpoint of civil procedure law, contract law and intellectual property law and to present some proposals to optimise mediation for intellectual property law. A number of legal systems, institutions and dispute resolution providers will be covered with the focus on the European Union, France and the UK.

Keywords

Mediation Conciliation Settlement Arbitration IP enforcement France United Kingdom Europe 

References

  1. Alexander N (2006) Global trends in mediation: riding the third wave. In: Alexander N (ed) Global trends in mediation, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 1Google Scholar
  2. Alexander N (2013) Harmonisation and diversity in the private international law of mediation: the rhythms of regulatory reform. In: Hopt KJ, Steffek F (eds) Mediation: principles and regulation in comparative perspective. OUP, Oxford, p 131Google Scholar
  3. Allison JR, Lemley MA, Walker J (2011) Patent quality and settlement among repeat patent litigants. Georgetown Law Journal 99:678Google Scholar
  4. Andrews N (2003) English civil procedure: Fundamentals of the new civil justice system. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Anway SP (2003) Mediation in copyright disputes: from compromise created incentives to incentive created compromises. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 18(2):439Google Scholar
  6. Ayela C (2009) Pratique de la médiation et règlement des conflits: Nous sommes tous des médiateurs ! JCP G 48:371Google Scholar
  7. Azzi T (2012) Les obstacles à l’arbitrage en droit de la propriété industrielle au lendemain de la loi du 17 mai 2011. CCE 2, Etude 4Google Scholar
  8. Bently L, Sherman B (2004) Intellectual property law, 2nd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Bently L, Sherman B (2009) Intellectual property law, 3rd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Bently L, Sherman B (2014) Intellectual property law, 4th edn. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernstein DA (2005–2006) A case for mediating trademark disputes in the age of expanding brands. Cardozo J Confl Resolut 7:139Google Scholar
  12. Binctin N (2014) Droit de la propriété intellectuelle, 3rd edn. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Blanc E (1855) Traité de la contrefaçon en tous genres et de sa poursuite en justice, 4th edn. Henri Plon et Cosse, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Blessing M (1995) The Mediation Rules of WIPO and others: a ticket to paradise or into a better mousetrap?. In: WIPO, Conference on rules for institutional arbitration and mediation: Geneva, January 20, 1995. WIPO Publication No. 741(E), Geneva, p 119Google Scholar
  15. Brugière JM, Gillet E (2011) Litiges de propriété intellectuelle: L’apport de la loi de simplification et d’amélioration de la qualité du droit du 17 mai 2011. JCP E 37, Etude 1663Google Scholar
  16. Bruguière JM (ed) (2012a) Les modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges de propriété intellectuelle. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruguière JM (2012b) Introduction. In: Brugière JM (ed) Les modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges de propriété intellectuelle. Dalloz-Sirey, Paris, p 1Google Scholar
  18. Cadiet L (2003) L’effet processuel des clauses de médiation. RDC 1:182Google Scholar
  19. Cadiet L (2005) Avant-propos. In: Cadiet L (dir), Médiation et arbitrage. Litec, Paris, p 5Google Scholar
  20. Cadiet L (2011) Panorama des modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits en droit français. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 28:150Google Scholar
  21. Cadiet L, Jeuland E (eds) (2013a) Droit judiciaire privé, 8th edn. Lexis Nexis, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Cadiet L, Normand J, Amrani Mekki S (2013) Théorie générale du procès, 2nd edn. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Cappelletti M, Garth B (1981) Access to justice and the welfare state: an introduction. In: Cappelletti M (ed) Access to justice and the welfare state. Bruylant, Alphen aan den Rijn/Sijthoff/Bruxelles, p 1Google Scholar
  24. Chavanne A, Burst JJ (1976) Droit de la propriété industrielle, 1st edn. Dalloz, Précis, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Cole PG (ed) (2011) CIPA guide to the patents act, 7th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Collar Fernandez C, Spolter J (1998) International intellectual property dispute resolution: is mediation a sleeping giant? J World Intellect Prop 1(3):555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Croze H (2012) Médiation: Entrée en vigueur de l’ordonnance du 16 novembre 2011 transposant la directive Médiation. Procédures 2: Repère 2Google Scholar
  28. de Balzac H (1966) Illusions perdues (t. IV., Scènes de la vie de province, éd. Furne, Béthune et Plon, Paris, 1843). In: Ducourneau JA (dir), Oeuvres complètes illustrées de Balzac: La comédie humaine. 8e vol., 1er partie, Etudes de moeurs, II. Livre. Rep., Graphoprint, Paris, p 568Google Scholar
  29. de Castro I, Wollgast H (2015) WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. In: Narin K, Heneghan P (eds) Arbitration world: jurisdictional and institutional comparisons, 5th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 289Google Scholar
  30. de Palo G, Trevor MB (2012) Introduction. In: de Palo G, Trevor MB (eds) EU mediation law and practice. OUP, Oxford, p 1Google Scholar
  31. de Werra J (ed) (2010a) Resolution of intellectual property disputes. Schultess-Bruylant, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  32. de Werra J (2010b) Avant-propos. In: Werra J de (ed) (2010) Resolution of intellectual property disputes. Schultess-Bruylant, Zürich, vGoogle Scholar
  33. de Werra J (2012) Can alternative dispute resolution mechanisms become the default method for solving international intellectual property disputes? Calif Western Int Law J 43:72Google Scholar
  34. de Werra J (2014) New developments of IP arbitration and mediation in Europe: the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Center Instituted by the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem:17Google Scholar
  35. Dinwoodie GB (2011) Remarks: ‘one size fits all’ consolidation and difference in intellectual property law. In: Kur A, Mizaras V (eds) The structure of intellectual property law: can one size fit all?. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 3Google Scholar
  36. Dreier T (2012) Satellite cable directive. In: Walter MM, Lewinski S von (eds) European copyright law: a commentary. OUP, Oxford, p. 391Google Scholar
  37. Elhauge E (2009) Framing the antitrust issues in the Google Books Settlement. Antitrust Chronicle October: 2Google Scholar
  38. EU Commission: ETAN Expert Working Group (1999) Strategic dimensions of intellectual property rights in the context of science and technology policy. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/ipr-expertgroupreport.pdf
  39. Fischer-Zernin V, Junker A (1988) Arbitration and mediation: synthesis or antithesis? Int Arb 5(1):22Google Scholar
  40. Fiss OM (1984) Against settlement. Yale Law J 93(6):1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fiss OM (2009) The history of an idea. Fordham Law Rev 78(3):1273Google Scholar
  42. Foskett D (ed) (2010) The law and practice of compromise, 7th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Foulon M, Strickler Y (2014) Modes alternatifs de résolution des litiges. In: J.-Cl. Procédure civile, fasc. 1000 (12.02.2014, version from 15.02.2016)Google Scholar
  44. French H (2007) Mediation and arbitration in England. Les Nouvelles XLII(1): 333Google Scholar
  45. Galloux JC (2000) Droit de la propriété industrielle, 1st edn. Dalloz, Cours, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Garner N (2014) Mediation and its relevance to intellectual property disputes. JIPLP 9(7):565Google Scholar
  47. Geiger C (2013) The construction of intellectual property in the European Union: searching for coherence. In: Geiger C (ed) Constructing European intellectual property—achievements and new perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, p 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Geiger C, Seuba X, Wechs Hatanaka A, (2013) Civil enforcement of intellectual property rights: public consultation on the efficiency of proceedings and accessibility of measures: CEIPI’s comments on the public consultation, with a focus on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2971107
  49. Geiger R, Khan DE, Kotzur M (2015) European Union treaties: Treaty on European Union. Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  50. Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006) HM Treasury, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Groß M (2009) Mediation im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  52. Groß M (2013) Handbuch IP-/IT-Mediation, 2. neu bearb. Auf. Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurht am MainGoogle Scholar
  53. Guinchard S et al (2013) Droit processuel: Droits fondamentaux du procès, 7th edn. Dalloz, Précis, ParisGoogle Scholar
  54. Harhoff D (2009) Economic cost-benefit analysis of a unified and integrated European patent litigation system. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/patent/studies/litigation_system_en.pdf
  55. Hausman FA, Sida FG (2009) Google and the property antitrust scrutiny of orphan works. J Compet Law Econ 5(3):411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hopt KJ, Steffek F (2013) Mediation: comparison of laws, regulatory models, fundamental issues. In: Hopt KJ, Steffek F (eds) Mediation: principles and regulation in comparative perspective. OUP, Oxford, p 1Google Scholar
  57. Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice (2013) La prudence et l’autorité: L’office du juge au XXIe siècle. http://www.ihej.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/rapport_office_du_juge_mai_2013.pdf
  58. Intellectual Property Advisory Committee (2003a) The enforcement of patent rights. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/contra_vision_ltd_336_p4_163kb.pdf
  59. Intellectual Property Advisory Committee (2003b) Governance response to IPAC proposalGoogle Scholar
  60. Jabaly P (2010) IP litigation or ADR: costing out the decision. JIPLP 5(10):730Google Scholar
  61. Janicke PM (2002) Arbitration of disputes concerning patents of invention. In: Dessemontet F (ed), Creative ideas for intellectual property: the ATRIP papers 2000–2001. CEDIDAC, p 227Google Scholar
  62. Jarrosson C (1996a) Médiation et conciliation: Définition et statut juridique. Gaz. Pal., Doctr, p 951Google Scholar
  63. Jarrosson C (1996b) L’arbitrabilité: présentation méthodologique. Revue de jurisprudence commerciale 40:1Google Scholar
  64. Jarrosson C (2005) Médiation et droit des contrats. In: Cadiet L (ed) Médiation et arbitrage. Litec, Paris, p 33Google Scholar
  65. Jeammaud A (2006) Genèse et postériorité de la transaction. In: Mallet-Bricourt B, Nourissat C (eds) La transaction dans toutes ses dimensions. Dalloz, Paris, p 5Google Scholar
  66. Jorgen Petersen E (2001) La mise en oeuvre des ADR dans les grands contrats. Gaz. Pal. 319:42Google Scholar
  67. Julienne F (2010) Transaction—Domaine. In: J.-Cl. Code Civil, Fasc. 20 (08.01.2010)Google Scholar
  68. Julienne F (2014) Transaction—notion. In: J.-Cl. Code Civil, Fasc. 10 (02.10.2014)Google Scholar
  69. Kahlvadjian B (2008) Le contrat d’auteur, outil d’anticipation. Thèse, Presse Universitaire d’Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-ProvenceGoogle Scholar
  70. Kakiuchi S (2008) Kuni ni yoru ADR no sokushin (promotion of ADR by state). In: Hayakawa Y, Yamada A, Hamano R (eds) ADR no kihontekishiza (Fundamental understandings on ADR). Nihonhyōronsha, Tokyo, p 61Google Scholar
  71. Kallipetis M, Ruttle S (2006) Better dispute resolution—the development and practice of mediation in the United Kingdom between 1995 and 2005. In: Goldsmith JC, Ingen-Housz A, Pointon GH (eds) ADR in business: practice and issues across countries and cultures. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 225Google Scholar
  72. Kendall J, Freedman C, Farrell J (2008) Expert determination, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxweell, London, p 64Google Scholar
  73. Kern P (1993) The EC “common position” on copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission. EIPR 15(8):282–283Google Scholar
  74. Kingston W (2000) The case for compulsory arbitration: empirical evidence. EIPR 22(4):154Google Scholar
  75. Kur A (2011) Introduction. In: Kur A and Mizaras V (eds) The structure of intellectual property law: Can one size fit all?. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, xiGoogle Scholar
  76. Kusaka Y (2016) Presentation of SOFTIC’s activities. Patent Study 61:51Google Scholar
  77. Lagarde X (2000) Transaction et ordre public. Receuil Dalloz 14: p. 217Google Scholar
  78. Lambert J (2003) IP litigation after Woolf revisited. EIPR 25(9):413Google Scholar
  79. Lang J (2006) A practical guide to mediation in intellectual property, technology and related disputes. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  80. Lee N, Norrgård M (2012) Alternatives to litigation in IP disputes in Asia and in Finland. Calif Western Int Law J 43:109Google Scholar
  81. Lee KD, Lewinski S von (1996) The settlement of international disputes in the field of intellectual property. In: Beire FK, Schricker G (eds) From GATT to TRIPs. IIC studies, vol 18. VCH, Weinheim, p 278Google Scholar
  82. Lelievre-Acosta B (2010) A cost-effective alternative. WIPO Mag 1:19Google Scholar
  83. Lew JDM, Mistellis LA, Kröll SM (2003) Comparative international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  84. Lindner B (2007) Alternative dispute resolution—a remedy for smoothing tensions between technological measures and exceptions? In: Torremans P (ed) Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 426Google Scholar
  85. Lionnet K (1987) Arbitration and mediation—alternatives or opposites? Int Arb 4(1):70Google Scholar
  86. Lord Chancellor’s Department (1998) White paper: modernizing justice—the government’s plans for reforming legal services and the courts. http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/access/mjuspap.pdf
  87. Lord Justice Jackson (2009) Review of civil litigation costs: final report. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/jackson-final-report-140110.pdf
  88. Lucas A, Lucas HJ (2012) Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique, 4th edn. LexisNexis, ParisGoogle Scholar
  89. Mackie KJ (1995) The ADR practice guide: commercial dispute resolution. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  90. Marino L (2013) Droit de la propriété intellectuelle. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  91. Matanovac Vučković R (2016) Implementation of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management and multi-territorial licensing of musical rights in regulating the tariff-setting systems in central and eastern Europe. IIC 47(1):28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ministry of Justice (2012) Expansion of the Patents Opinion Service. IA No: BIS0349. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA13-16J.pdf
  93. Montels B (2013) Un an de droit de l’audiovisuel. CCE 6: Chron. 6Google Scholar
  94. Passa J (2009) Droit de la propriété industrielle, t.1, 2nd edn. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  95. Passa J (2013) Droit de la propriété industrielle, t.2, LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  96. Phillips J (2006) Consensus or compulsion? JIPLP 1(6):367Google Scholar
  97. Plant DW (2008) We must talk because we can. ICC Services Publ., ParisGoogle Scholar
  98. Pollaud-Dulian F (2011) La propriété industrielle. Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  99. Pollaud-Dulian F (2014) Le droit d’auteur, 2nd edn. Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  100. Pons B (2014) Contrat de transaction—solutions transactionelles: conciliation, médiation, procédure participative. Dalloz, Référence, ParisGoogle Scholar
  101. Probst R, Feller C, Pless V (2016) Munich IP dispute resolution forum: the UPC Mediation and Arbitration Centre—Munich, 2 February 2016. GRUR Int 8–9:766Google Scholar
  102. Rapport de Guinchard (2008) L’ambition raisonnée d’une justice apaisée. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/084000392/index.shtml
  103. Rapport de Magendie (2008) Célérité et qualité de la justice—La médiation: une autre voie. http://www.ca-paris.justice.fr/art_pix/Rapport_d%E9finitif_du_groupe_de_travail_Magendie_sur_la_m%E9diation_premi%E8re_partie_1.pdf
  104. Renouard AC (1838) Traité des droits d’auteurs dans la littéraire, les sciences et les beaux-arts, t. 2. Jules Renouard et cte. Libraires, ParisGoogle Scholar
  105. Rogers CPIII, Calkins S, Patterson MR, Andersen WR (eds) (2008) Antitrust law: Policy and practice, 4th edn, LexisNexisGoogle Scholar
  106. Roubier P (1952) Le droit de la propriété industrielle, t.1. Sirey, ParisGoogle Scholar
  107. Schmidt-Szalewski J, Pierre JL (2007) Droit de la propriété industrielle, 4th edn. Litec, ParisGoogle Scholar
  108. Schricker G (2002) The importance of intellectual property enforcement in academia and practice. In: Schricker G (ed) Symposium on enforcement of intellectual property rights and patent litigation (10 to 14 September 2001). European Patent Office, Munich, p 1Google Scholar
  109. Schwarze J (ed) (2012) EU-Kommentar, 3. Auf. Nomos-Helbing Lichtenhahn-facultas.wuv, Baden-Baden/Basel/WienGoogle Scholar
  110. Seraglini C, Ortscheidt J (2013) Droit de l’aribtrage interne et international. Montchrestien, Domat Droit Privé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  111. Shipman S (2011) Compulsory mediation: the elephant in the room. CJQ 30(2):163Google Scholar
  112. Steffek F, Unberath H (eds) (2013) Regulating dispute resolution. Hart publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  113. Stürmann S (2016) Verfahren vor dem EUIPO: Anregungen zur Vermeidung typischer Verfahrensmängel—Teil 3: Löschungs- und Beschwerdeverfahren. GRUR-Prax: 118Google Scholar
  114. Tackaberry J, Marriott A (2003) Bernstein’s handbook of arbitration and dispute resolution practice, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  115. Tarzia G (2005) Médiation et institution judiciaire. In: Cadiet L (ed) Médiation et arbitrage: alternative dispute résolution Alternative à la justice ou justice alternative? Perspectives comparatives. Litec, Paris, p 19Google Scholar
  116. Theurich S (2010a) Designing tailored alternative dispute resolution in intellectual property: the experience of WIPO. In: de Werra J (ed) Resolution of intellectual property disputes. Schultess-Bruylant, Zürich, p 175Google Scholar
  117. Theurich S (2010b) Alternative dispute resolution in art and cultural heritage—Explored in the context of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s work. In: Odendahl K, Weber PJ (eds), Kulturgüterschutz—Kunstrecht—Kulturrecht, Festschrift für Kurt Siehr zum 75. Geburtstag aus dem Kreise des Doktoranden—und Habilitandenseminars “Kunst und Recht”, Schriften zum Kunst- und Kulturrecht, vol 8. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, p 569Google Scholar
  118. Torggler H (2007) Praxishandbuch Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Verlag Österreich, WienGoogle Scholar
  119. Toulmin J (2009) Cross-border mediation and civil proceedings in national courts. In: Europäische Rechtsakädemie, Practical issues of cross-border mediation (Trier, 14 to 15 May, 2009), vol 10. ERA Forum, p 554Google Scholar
  120. Treppoz E (2013) Brevet européen à effet unitaire et juridiction unifiée: une attente récompensée? RTD Eur 4:909Google Scholar
  121. Vitoria M (2015) Mediation of intellectual property disputes. JIPLP 1(6):401Google Scholar
  122. Vitorino A, Recommendations resulting from the mediation on private copying and reprography levies (31.01.2013). http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/levy_reform/130131_levies-vitorino-recommendations_en.pdf
  123. Vrins O, Schneider M (eds) (2012) Enforcement of intellectual property rights through border measures, 2nd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  124. Wechs Hatanaka A (2013) What liability for Internet service provider faced with trade mark infringement on Internet auction site and shopping mall?: comparison between Europe, France, Germany and Japan. Institute of Intellectual Property, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  125. Yeend NN, Rincon CE (1996) ADR and intellectual property: a prudent option. IDEA 36(4):603Google Scholar
  126. Zuckerman A (2003) Civil procedure. LexisNexis, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associate Professor of Ritsumeikan University, Faculty of LawKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations