نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The development of international transactions and the commercial exploitation of intellectual property has increased the necessity of creating dispute resolution methods in the field of intellectual property in accordance with international requirements. The parties to the dispute are looking for efficient, flexible, and low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms that will not disrupt their business relations. This is despite the fact that intellectual property disputes often lead to long and expensive lawsuits due to the territorial nature, diversity of rights, and technical complexities that result from the integration of different fields such as artificial intelligence with other fields, which is not favorable for the courts and litigants. Therefore, intellectual property rights holders have turned to methods that are more under the control and management of the disputing parties to resolve disputes. The special features of intellectual property rights and its lawsuits, such as territoriality, the specialization of intellectual property issues, conflicts in the jurisdiction of courts, widespread violations in different jurisdictions, the importance of confidentiality, the length of the process, and
the huge costs of international proceedings. The lack of an international convention on the enforcement of intellectual property judgments is one of the most important reasons that has affected the efficiency of judicial proceedings in these cases. Non-judicial dispute resolution methods, which mainly have fewer formalities and costs and are faster, reduce many of these problems.
Among the non-judicial methods, mediation has the advantage of considering the characteristics of intellectual property, and compared to other methods, it is more successful in resolving these disputes. The interdisciplinary nature of most intellectual property claims and the need for various expertise to resolve disputes and the possibility of examining complex intellectual property cases, especially patent claims, by technical experts in the shortest time compared to other methods and often at a much lower cost, territorial nature of intellectual property rights and solving the problem of conflict in the jurisdiction of national and international courts and reducing the risk of issuing conflicting opinions, reducing the damage of the owner of the intellectual work due to the urgency and speed of mediation in resolving the dispute, focusing on the mutual interests of the parties and resolving the dispute amicably and, as a result, maintaining the commercial relations of the parties in long-term contracts that sometimes cover the entire period of protection of intellectual property, the suitability of the rapid development of technology, and the rapid diffusion of intellectual properties due to their intangible nature with the speed of dispute resolution in mediation compared to the slowness of judicial proceedings, extraordinary flexibility in the dispute resolution process and the possibility of adopting creative solutions such as concluding a license agreement, technology transfer, integration, cooperation in research and development, and agreement on the division of patent within a specific territorial area instead of being limited to the specific Judicial decisions such as revocation, financial damage, and etc. are the advantages of this method in solving intellectual property disputes compared to other alternative methods.
Also, privacy and confidentiality and maintaining the technical and commercial secrets of the parties, avoiding the reinterpretation of the claim in court and the risk of narrowing the claims, reducing the risk of patent invalidation, avoiding the research process, and obtaining the opinions of multiple experts due to the complexities of intellectual property claims, especially patent lawsuits and its costs, complete control of the parties on the determination of proceedings and the absence of legal dates and deadlines, being held in a single stage and with quick results, lack of legal obligation of the parties to accept the mediator's recommendations and suggestions, and the optionality of the procedure that leads to the parties not resorting to useless tricks or objections to slow down or create obstacles in the mediation process. Another reason is the effectiveness of mediation in resolving
intellectual property disputes. A field research has been prepared to answer the question of what functions the mediation institution has to resolve intellectual property disputes and it comes to the conclusion that mediation is effective in all aspects of the conflict, including judicial and non-judicial elements such as commercial interests, feelings, and other conditions of companions. Considering the dispute and empowering the parties, it allows them to find the right solution based on their special interests and needs. Therefore, it can be said that although dispute resolution through mediation is not considered the only appropriate method for resolving intellectual property disputes, it has desirable functions and is efficient in most of these disputes.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
منابع
الف) فارسی
DOI: 20.1001.1.25885618.1390.41.4.7.1
Available at:http://ensani.ir/fa/article/361889/ (6 آبان 1400).
https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56353.html ، (17 آذر 1400).
ب) خارجی
9. Hopt, Klaus J & Felix Steffek (2013). Mediation: Principles and regulation in comparative perspective, Oxford University Press.
10. Anway, Stephen P. (2003). “Mediation in Copyright Disputes: From Compromise Created Incentives to Incentive Created Compromises”, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, pp. 439-469, Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Landing Page?handle= hein. journals/ohjdpr18&div=4&id= &page = Accessed 12 November 2021
11. Agris, Cheryl H.; Stephen P. Gilbert; Charles, E. Miller & Sherman, Kahn (2011). “The Benefits of Mediation and Arbitration for Dispute Resolution in Intellectual Property Law”, NYSBA New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer, Vol. 4, No.2. pp.61-65, availableat:https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Sections/Dispute%20Resolution/Dispute %20 Resolution%20pdfs/Benefits%20of%20adr%20for%20ip.pdf. Accessed 5June 2021
12. Bernstein, David Allen (2005). “A Case for Mediating Trademark Disputes in the Age of Expanding Brands” 7 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. Vol. 6, Issue 2, available at: http://cardozojcr.com/vol7no1/CAC102.pdf, Accessed 25 September 2018
13. Chi, Stephanie (2005). “The role of mediation in trademark disputes”, University of Houston Law Center. Available at: http://www.americanjournalofmediation.com, Accessed 12 February 2021
14. Corbett, Susan Felicity (2011).” Mediation of Intellectual Property Disputes: A Critical Analysis”, New Zealand Business Law Quarterly, Vol. 17. pp. 51-67, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1802207, Accessed 18 March2021
15. Kathi Vidal, leeron g; kalay, peter s.; Menzel, Matthew powers & Sarita ,Venkat (2019). “Patent Mediation Guide”, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3320111 Accessed 14 May 2021
16. Lemley, Kevin M. (2004). “I’ll Make Him an Offer He Can’t Refuse: A Proposed Model for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Intellectual Property Disputes”, Akron Law Review: Vol. 37. pp. 285-327, available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/ cgi/ viewcontent .cgi? article=1339&context=akronlawreview Accessed 16May2021
17. Martin, Julia A (1997).”Arbitrating in the Alps Rather Than Litigating in Los Angele: The Advantages of International Intellectual property-specific Alternative Dispute Resolution”, Stanford Law Review,Vol.49, No.4, pp. 917-970, DOI:10.2307/1229340.
18. Quinn, Eugene R (1999). “Using Alternative Dispute Resolution to Resolve Patent Litigation: A Survey of Patent Litigators”, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol 3. pp77-116, Available at: https://scholarship.law. Marquette.edu/ iplr/Vol.3/iss1/3, Accessed 2 June2021
19. Tan, Joyce A (2018). “WIPO, Guide on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Options for Intellectual Property Offices and Courts”, available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4342, Accessed 11 May 2021
20. Tran, Sarah(2008).“Experienced Intellectual Property Mediators; Increasingly Attractive in Times of “Patent” Unpredit ability”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol.13. pp.813-825, available at:https://www.hnlr.org/articles/archive/,Accessed 18 June2021
21. Veronique Bardach (1993). “A Proposal for the Entertainment Industry: The Use of Mediation as an Alternative to More Common Forms of Dispute Resolution”, Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.497-477, availableat: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1264&context=elr, Accessed 18 June2021
22. Advisory Committee on Enforcement, Ninth Session, Geneva, (2014). activities of the world intellectual property organization arbitration and mediation center.
23. American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), (2015). Report of the Economic Survey Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol37/ iss2/7
24. EU Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters (Mediation Directive)
25. https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/ipos/mediation
26. ICC Mediation Rules (2014)
27. International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, Attitudes Toward ADR in the Asia-Pacific Region: A CPR Survey (2011).
28. Mediation Development Toolkit, Ensuring implementation of the European Commission for the efficiency of justice Guidelines on mediation, (CEPEJ), 2018
29. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation.
30. WIPO Mediation Rules, (2021)
)