Resolving Patent Conflicts: A Deep Dive into Litigation and Arbitration

Introduction 

Intellectual property rights are among the most important features of almost any field in the world. New technologies across a range of sectors has increased the amount of patent applications filed in India. Nonetheless, the global exploitation, protection, and enforcement of intellectual rights are crucial for all innovators.

This is why patent litigation requires judicial proceedings in every jurisdiction where the registered patent is allegedly infringed. If the product in question has a worldwide market, patent litigation might have a substantial legal and financial impact.

The Emerging Pattern of Patent Litigation in India

The number of SEP lawsuits and pharmaceutical patent disputes that influence its IPR system has increased recently. The court’s patent processes and rules are likewise evolving everyday as more patent cases are handled. Making a judgement now takes less time because to stricter and simpler procedural procedures. 

The injured parties are also encouraged to resolve their patent dispute in order to reduce the burden on the courts. However, there is a need to disseminate information regarding patents and litigation in other parts of the country. However, following 2007, the number of patent lawsuits in India skyrocketed. India is becoming recognised as a powerful enforcement of intellectual property laws in recent rulings, particularly those made following trials.

Resolving Patent Conflicts

The primary element in the settlement of patent disputes is frequently the patentee’s request for an interim injunction. Intense debates between the parties seeking a temporary injunction have been at the heart of the litigation. At the initial hearing, the courts have frequently been forgiving when it comes to awarding interim injunctions, including ex-parte injunctions before summoning the defendants in issue. This puts the patent holders in a stronger position to settle the issue swiftly.

In most of the cases Ericsson filed against Indian mobile phone makers, for example, interim injunctions were granted. The legal dispute, however, came to a conclusion with the parties’ agreement. In accordance with the mutually agreed upon rates, the defendants agreed to pay royalties. Similar to this, Vringo Infrastructure brought many cases against other parties, all of which were settled.

It is impossible to overlook the rise of patent litigation around “Standard Essential Patents” while talking about the “Ericsson and Vringo cases.” When a patent in a technical field is necessary to meet the standards of that technology, it is referred to as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). Through a license arrangement between the manufacturer and the SEP holder, manufacturers who employ SEPs have access to them. To protect producers from unjust and inconsistent licensing terms, standard-setting bodies mandate that SEP holders provide reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory licenses.

Also Read: How to do Trademark Search before registration?

Dispute Settlement Forum and the Patents Act of 1970

India already has a highly developed legal system thanks to the Supreme Court’s plenary powers (Article 142) to order absolute justice in any cause or issue and its binding impact (Article 144) on all civil and judicial bodies within India’s boundaries to assist the Supreme Court. The Indian Patent Act of 1970 created its own judicial and administrative system. The Controller of Patents is chosen by the federal government to oversee the patent’s primary office. The central government may employ additional staff who operate under supervision and report to the controller. 

The Patents Controller was given the jurisdiction of a civil court throughout the course of a lawsuit by the CPC 1908. Affidavit testimony, document discovery and production, summoning and compelling attendance, issuing commissions to gather evidence and allocate costs, and more are among the areas in which the Act grants the controller the power to act in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code 1908.

Under the numerous procedures that are available to them, such as applications, oppositions, revocations, revisions to applications, specifications, and many more obligations, the controller can proceed with the implementation of natural justice norms. To be heard by the patent controller general, a person or document may need to attend in person.

Who Is Eligible for Patent Litigation?

Patentee

The patentee has the first right to file an action for infringement if his rights are violated. When a patent is granted to a patentee, it gives him certain rights to use, sell, and manufacture for profit for a predetermined period of time. Any actions taken by someone else without permission that constitute infringement provide the patent holder the right to file a lawsuit.

The sole licensee

The exclusive licensee is on an equal footing with the patent owners when it comes to filing infringement lawsuits. For any infringement committed after the license’s issuing date, the exclusive licensee may file an infringement claim. Furthermore, the patent owner could be added as a plaintiff instead of a defendant. One may contend that the Act gives the exclusive licensee the authority to bring infringement claims and that the patent holder may be included as a pro forma defendant if he shows no interest in doing so.

Licensee

According to Section 110 of the Patents Act of 1970, the licensee may also file a case for patent infringement. The licensee must insist that the patentee take action in order to prevent any patent infringement. What happens if the patent holder is asked to do so and does not comply within two months? Therefore, the licensee may bring an infringement case in the patentee’s name as if he were the patent holder, and the patentee may be designated a pro forma defendant.

The Centre for WIPO Mediation and Arbitration

in order to settle commercial disputes by providing mediation and arbitration services to the parties engaged in intellectual property matters. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre was established in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1994. It is widely known that the Center’s arbitration procedures are particularly well-suited to disputes involving entertainment, technology, and other forms of intellectual property.

• By submitting an arbitration request to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, the claimant starts the WIPO arbitration process. The arbitration request has to provide the issue’s summary information.
• After receiving the arbitration request, the respondent has thirty days to provide an answer.
• The parties will decide how many arbitrators will be on the panel. Until the parties agree otherwise, the WIPO Centre shall choose the only arbitrator unless it determines that three arbitrators are appropriate.
• The statement of claim must be filed within 30 days of the tribunal’s establishment.
• The statement of defence must be filed within 30 days of receiving the statement of claim.
• Further submissions may be scheduled by the tribunal.
• A hearing may be convened for the oral argument and presentation of evidence by experts and witnesses at the request of the parties or at the tribunal’s discretion.
• When the tribunal is satisfied that the parties have had enough opportunity to present their arguments and supporting evidence, the matter will be closed.
• The tribunal must render its final decision within three months after the proceedings’ conclusion.

The advantages of arbitration in patent-related disputes

Patent rights, by definition, are territorial rights associated with the specific jurisdiction in which the protection is given. Consequently, the rules of the single country where the innovation is protected regulate the patent litigation procedure, which cannot be merged from several countries. When it comes to speed, decision-makers with varying degrees of technical expertise and experience, and how comparable circumstances are handled, the legal systems of different jurisdictions differ. Due to its special advantages, courts most frequently employ arbitration to settle patent disputes.

A Single Procedure

Patent disputes usually include parties from different countries. Therefore, court disagreements are usually the outcome of inconsistencies arising from differences in legal procedures among countries. Arbitration allows the parties to settle patent issues in a single, less expensive procedure. It helps avoid complicated and inconsistent legal processes in several jurisdictions.

Resolution through Neutrality

In arbitration, the parties may select impartial and negotiable rules, language, procedures, standards, and conventions. The arbitration can be held with arbitrators of any country, in any language, and in any location.

Maintaining confidentiality

Any disputes can be settled privately through arbitration proceedings.

Speedier and more economical

The arbitration process is faster and less expensive than court litigation procedures.

Enforcement of the Decision’s Finality

Arbitration decisions are final and take effect immediately, in contrast to court decisions, which are often appealable or contestable in a higher court.

The capacity to choose a competent decision-maker

One of the most important features of the arbitration is the parties’ opportunity to select the arbitral committee. This is to ensure that their position is heard by the committee they trust, which is thought to be objective, neutral, and knowledgeable in the relevant sector. The level of technical proficiency must be higher. The arbitral committee allows parties to select the arbitrator of their choice, preferably one who has a natural understanding of the problems involved.

Arbitration’s Drawbacks in Patent Cases

Arbitration is the best way to settle patent disputes, but it has limitations. Some disagreements, for instance, can only be resolved by court litigation. In some cases, arbitration cannot settle a disagreement that would establish a public legal standard. An arbitral ruling, a settlement agreement, or the arbitration process are primarily binding exclusively on the parties. Assume a party wishes to get a legally binding ruling about the validity or invalidity of a specific patent’s claims. In that instance, a court judgement will be the exclusive way to acquire such a determination. Furthermore, arbitration is less suited if one of the two parties is not collaborating due to its harmonic character. If both parties must agree to arbitration, no party may force the other to participate.

Unable to resolve the issue

According to state law, arbitration may not always be the best option for resolving patent disputes. In a patent dispute involving an infringement, for instance, an arbitral committee will not determine whether or not a patent is being infringed. Additionally, an arbitrator or committee may not have the power to grant injunctions if a court does.

Inability to access precedents

Arbitration decisions are private, thus precedents from previous arbitrations may not be accessible and may not dissuade future infringers.

Conclusion

The parties have more control over the process when they choose arbitration, a self-help technique for settling disputes out of court. In comparison to patent litigation, arbitration is a more efficient, less expensive, and less time-consuming way to resolve patent issues. This could not always be the case, though, as arbitral processes get more intricate. Parties that want to maintain a good relationship and keep their conflict quiet also choose arbitration.