Settling Intellectual Property Disputes

How I Saved My Client from Millions in Losses (Just with one skill - Negotiation) ▶ Challenge: → My client contracted a third party to build an essential app. → The other party attempted to leak the app’s source code. → Potential consequences: loss of investors, reputation damage, and multimillion-dollar financial hit. ▶ The Strategy: → Avoided lengthy court battles. → Filed a DMCA notice to protect intellectual property. → Prepared for negotiation. ▶ Here's how I negotiated: → Scheduled a Zoom call with the other party. → Emphasized potential losses they faced. → Discussed reputation impact, legal consequences, and financial burden. → Firm stance: We wouldn’t back down. ▶ The Outcome: → Negotiated a settlement agreement. → Protected our client’s interests. → Saved the other party from a $50,000 penalty. ▶ Here's what you should know: → Negotiation skills are crucial for contract lawyers. → Finding common ground leads to mutually beneficial outcomes.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻-𝗔𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 Sometimes the best solution to a patent dispute isn't legal—it's technical. "Designing around" a patent means modifying your products to avoid infringement while maintaining their commercial value. This approach can be particularly effective for software patents. Here's why design-arounds often work well for software: • 𝗦𝗼𝗳𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗙𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. Software can often be modified more easily and quickly than hardware to implement alternative approaches. • 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄. As discussed in earlier posts, software patent claims often include specific implementation details that can be avoided. • 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁. Most software problems can be solved in multiple ways, providing opportunities for non-infringing alternatives. Successful design-arounds require: • 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀. Understanding exactly what the patent claims cover—and don't cover—is crucial for identifying design-around opportunities. • 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲. Your engineers need to work closely with patent counsel who understand both the legal and technical aspects of software. • 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. The design-around process should be documented through counsel to maintain privilege, as discussed in earlier posts. In my experience, even small changes to software implementation can often avoid infringement while maintaining product functionality. For example, I recently helped a client avoid litigation by removing a single element that was required by a patent's claims, causing the client's products to fall outside the scope of those claims. Design-arounds are often the most cost-effective solution to patent disputes, particularly for software patents. In my wrap-up post, I'll summarize the key defensive strategies we've explored in this series and provide guidance on when each strategy might be most appropriate. #patents #intellectualproperty #softwarepatents

Arbitration. Mediation. Discovery Litigation. Same problem, three wildly different paths. Ever stood at a business crossroads wondering how to resolve a dispute without burning cash, trust, or time? Here’s the cheat sheet most execs don’t get until it’s too late: 🕊️ Mediation is like relationship therapy for your business problems. You talk it out. A neutral mediator helps you get real, cut through the noise, and (hopefully) shake hands by the end. No one forces anything—you decide together. Think: collaboration over confrontation. ⚖️ Arbitration is court without the courtroom. You skip the judge and jury, hire an arbitrator, and let them decide your fate. It’s private, a little quicker, and you usually can’t appeal—so make sure your side’s tight. Think: Vegas rules apply—what happens in arbitration stays in arbitration. 🔍 Discovery litigation? That’s war. Subpoenas. Depositions. Terabytes of email. 10,000 “RE: re: RE: reply all” threads. It’s long. It’s expensive. And sometimes, it’s absolutely necessary—especially when you need to expose the whole truth, hold people accountable, or protect precedent. Think: truth at all costs. So how do you choose? If you value speed, privacy, and flexibility—go with mediation or arbitration. But if you’re in a fight where the truth needs teeth? Welcome to discovery litigation. Just pack a lunch. It’s going to be a while. In business—and in life—it’s not just about winning the argument. It’s about choosing the right arena to solve it. #MHN IST Management #Leadership #eDiscovery #DisputeResolution #Litigation #Mediation #Arbitration #eDiscovery #LinkedInTopVoice #BusinessStrategy #LegalWisdom #ExecutivePerspective #Linkedinconnections #Linkedincommunity #AI

Sec 12A – prelitigation mediation in commercial matters – wish or command ? Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act 2015, dictates that no suit can be instituted without exhausting the remedy of pre-litigation mediation. Thus, was a question whether ex-parte injunctions especially in IPR matters would a thing of the past. The intention of this provision is obvious – in commercial disputes, parties should try and amicably resolve the matter instead of rushing the court at the drop of a hat . 'Alternate dispute resolution’ and mediation as a means to resolve commercial disputes especially when settlement is possible should be explored is the idea. As usual there is “but” – that if urgent reliefs are sought, one may seek exemption. Now, what are those ‘urgent’ conditions?   ‘Urgency’ is not defined under commercial courts Act. But common sense dictates that ‘urgency’ is something that cannot wait eternally – i.e until mediation is completed. Mediation depends on the parties – some may agree (for example) to change their mark or take a licence (eg software).   Is it practical in IPR disputes to expect the Plaintiff to comply with  section 12A before approaching the court ? Yes and no.   For instance, in case of software piracy, it may be possible to propose mediation – and if the party does not accept licence, it would be fair to institute a suit and seek relief of injunction as party does not seem willing to accept licence. Even here I say ‘may’. On the other hand, in case of counterfeits, or infringement on youtube/telegram etc and hope for mediation to bring a resolution to the dispute.   Yes, one Anacin is not the panacea for all ailments. Supreme Court in Patil Automation Vs Rakheja Engineers in 2022 clarified that the pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a mandatory and any suit instituted in violation of the provision is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The SC clarified that the declaration in the judgment would be made effective from August 20, 2022 so as to keep the concerned parties sufficiently informed. This case however, did not deal with cases where urgent reliefs are sought. This gap was noticed by Supreme court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi where court observed that plaintiff had issued a C&D notice and also filed a Notice of Opposition against the petitioner's trademark application-  these actions endorse that urgent interim relief to protect their intellectual property rights ought to be granted to Plaintiff. Now, in Reddys Vs Smart Laboatories where the main issue was with regard to mark AZIWOK and AZIWAKE (both azithromycin tablets)– the Delhi High Court has clarified that plea of urgent relief must be pleaded in the plaint and if a bonafide and genuine plea for exemption is made, the same should be considered and allowed. The test is whether the plea is ‘bonafide and genuine’. So to conclude, Section 12A is a command, but with exceptions.

On December 26, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) introduced the Patent Dispute Administrative Adjudication and Mediation Measures, set to take effect on February 1, 2025. These measures aim to optimize patent dispute resolution by enhancing efficiency, fairness, and legal predictability in intellectual property enforcement. Practical Applications and Key Provisions: 1.     Clear Jurisdiction: Cases are managed locally, with complex or cross-regional matters escalated for higher-level adjudication. 2.     Qualified Personnel: Adjudicators are certified, and technical experts may be appointed to assist with complex disputes. 3.     Streamlined Procedures: Timelines ensure swift evidence submissions, hearings, and decisions. 4.     Digital Tools: Online technology is encouraged to simplify submissions, hearings, and case tracking. 5.     Mediation Focus: A voluntary, cost-effective alternative to litigation for fair outcomes. Why This Matters: These changes offer businesses a more predictable and expedited path to resolve patent disputes, fostering a robust IP ecosystem. Legal professionals and companies should adapt strategies to align with this evolving framework. #PatentLaw #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #ChinaIPLaw