header-logo header-logo

Secrets & laws

06 March 2015 / Lucia Williams , Margaret Tofalides
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail
nlj_7643_tofalideswilliams

Margaret Tofalides & Lucia Williams put disclosure & confidentiality in IP arbitration under scrutiny

Intellectual property (IP) disputes are ever more frequently being submitted to arbitration, and parties often raise questions about confidentiality. Of particular concern are issues surrounding patent disputes and the analysis of the compounds, formulas and processes they involve. Many IP disputes centre on techniques employed or business information, all of which are highly sensitive, and strict measures need to be implemented in the arbitration to protect the parties’ rights.

The numerous benefits of arbitration range from the flexible nature of arbitral procedure, over which the parties have quasi-absolute control, to the ease of enforceability of arbitration awards and the fact that IP-related issues can be resolved in a single set of proceedings rather than having to be litigated in every jurisdiction in which the IP right is allegedly infringed. Patent litigation on a large scale can be a drain on resources and produce unsatisfactory results. The mammoth Apple-Samsung patent dispute, for example, has involved over 50 lawsuits

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll