Should You Arbitrate Cross-Border IP Disputes? Problems It Solves and Pitfalls to Avoid

Palo Alto, California; Virtual

Cleary Gottlieb partners David Herrington, Christopher P. Moore, and Marcela Robledo participated in “Should You Arbitrate Cross-Border IP Disputes? Problems It Solves and Pitfalls to Avoid,” an interactive live panel discussion that addressed the advantages arbitrating IP disputes can achieve and critical pitfalls to avoid.

When parties to cross-border agreements involving intellectual property have a dispute, litigating in court can be a mess: multiple proceedings in different countries; costly and time-wasting fights about jurisdiction and procedure, judges and juries who lack relevant experience, delays caused by busy court schedules, further delays for lengthy appeals (sometimes followed by remands and subsequent appeals), and obstacles to enforcing court judgments in other countries.

Choosing to arbitrate such disputes can work wonders: a single proceeding, scheduling and procedures tailored to the dispute, arbitrators chosen for relevant experience, avoiding delays caused by court schedules or procedural disputes or appeals, and ease of enforcing arbitral awards. But to achieve these advantages, it’s essential to avoid common pitfalls that can make arbitration more costly, complicated, and time-consuming than expected.

Panelists included:

• David Herrington, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb
• Christopher Moore, Partner and Global Co-Head of International Arbitration Group, Cleary Gottlieb
• Sarita Venkat, VP & Deputy General Counsel, Global Litigation and Competition, Cisco, and formerly Head of Global IP Transactions, Apple

Introductory remarks by:

• Marcela Robledo, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb

Concluding remarks by:

• Sarah E. Reynolds, Disputes Partner, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, and CEO, Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC)