Resolving Disputes Through Negotiation

When people think of intellectual property (IP) disputes, they often picture courtroom battles – teams of specialist lawyers and litigators, long proceedings and complex arguments. It’s a familiar scene, but it’s not the only way of resolving things. In fact, there’s another approach that can be quicker, less expensive and more flexible. As IP becomes more important to enterprises and economies, the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) like arbitration and mediation for IP and tech disputes is gaining momentum. I wanted to share three key insights we’re seeing through the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (AMC), which was established in 1994 to offer tailored ADR services to IP owners around the world and is part of WIPO’s Global IP services. First, our user base is becoming more diverse. Last year was the AMC’s busiest yet. Almost 900 cases were resolved through the Center – up 25% from the year before and nearly 400% in the last five years. What’s really encouraging is that SMEs, startups, creators and individual innovators now make up half of users. We’re also seeing more national courts referring cases to WIPO mediation, showing growing trust in the process. Second, the topics we’re handling are becoming more varied. Some of the busiest sectors last year were software, video games and eSports – a clear sign of the digital acceleration. Other areas like standard-essential patents and FRAND, digital copyright and life sciences are also picking up. Third, interest in ADR is going global. We’re now working with nearly 100 national entities, signed around a dozen new agreements in the past year, from Brazil to Qatar. Disputes handled through our co-administration programs with IP and copyright offices also rose by over 50%. And the AMC has handled more than 76,000 domain name disputes, or cybersquatting cases, in close to 190 countries (in fact, we just celebrated 25 years of the UDRP system to address such disputes). As intangible assets like data and IP drive the global economy, the need for smart, flexible dispute resolution for intangible assets is only going to grow. WIPO will continue working hard to make sure that there is range of options available to innovators and creators worldwide. More: https://lnkd.in/ekHMJ2qE #WIPO #IntellectualProperty #Arbitration #Mediation #wipoCenter

The Co-Founder Dynamic: How Varun Alagh and I Navigate Disagreements "Show me your numbers." That's become our default response whenever we disagree. Not "you're wrong" or "trust me on this", just "show me your numbers." This approach was born from a heated 2017 argument in our living room, in front of our son, over a product launch decision. Varun wanted to delay, I wanted to ship. We were both passionate, both convinced we were right. But we were both arguing from gut feelings, not facts. Now, years later, here's how we handle disagreements: 1. Data Wins, Egos Lose When we disagree, we each gather our strongest data points within 24 hours. Market research, consumer feedback, financial projections, competitor analysis: whatever supports our position. Then we compare. The stronger data set wins. 2. Define Decision-Making Domains We divided responsibilities clearly to minimize overlap conflicts. And while some decisions we still take together, the overall result is 80% fewer conflicts because we know who has the final say. 3. The 24-Hour Rule for Major Disagreements If the data is inconclusive or we can't agree after reviewing the numbers, we sleep on it. Emotions cool down, egos step aside, and new perspectives often emerge. Our best decisions come from our second conversation, not our first argument. The deeper truth: Our different perspectives make us stronger. Varun's analytical approach balances my intuitive decisions. My market instincts complement his operational rigor. But data grounds both of us. What we've learned: • Two founders agreeing all the time means one is unnecessary • Healthy conflict leads to better decisions—if it's fact-based • Respect for data matters more than being right • The best arguments are won with evidence, not emotion #CoFounderDynamics #Entrepreneurship #StartupLessons

This week could be a turning point for the business of football - and for how much power sport governing bodies really have. The Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice will issue their opinion on 2 major cases that could shape the future of agent regulations across Europe. The outcome will give a clear idea of where things are heading. In a nutshell: 𝗥𝗢𝗚𝗢𝗡 𝘃𝘀 𝗗𝗙𝗕 ➟ Focuses on how the German FA applied FIFA’s agent rules ➟ 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Can sports governing bodies regulate independent businesses, like agents, under EU law? ➟ Goes to the heart of the Meca-Medina doctrine: when do sporting rules fall outside the scope of EU competition law? 𝗥𝗥𝗖 𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗦 𝘃𝘀 𝗙𝗜𝗙𝗔 ➟ Challenges the cap on agent fees and the ban on dual representation ➟ FIFA argues the regulations help make transfers more transparent and protect the integrity of the game ➟ RRC claims they amount to anti-competitive price-fixing 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿? ➟ These cases go beyond football ➟ They could redraw the line between genuine sporting regulation and business control - and determine whether agent fee caps can legally be enforced in the EU Ones to watch 👀

Well, it finally happened. An arbitral award has been annulled/set aside on the basis that the award contained AI hallucinations showing the arbitrator effectively abdicated his duty to decide the case. In Association des ressources intermédiaires d'hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec - Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 2026 QCCS 1360, the Superior Court of Quebec found that an award apparently drafted with extensive AI assistance breached procedural fairness, particularly the fundamental rule that "he who decides must hear". This flows directly from the audi alterem partem principle. Interestingly, the Court also found the arbitrator's conduct violated the rules of deliberative secrecy. It was careful to note that deliberative secrecy does not prevent an arbitrator from using researchers, clerical staff, translators, or similar means of assistance, nor does it prevent a decision-maker from bouncing ideas off a colleague. The line is crossed, however, where someone or, in this case, something other than the arbitrator effectively steps in and takes over the reasoning and writing process: "[87]   La règle n’a pas pour but d’interdire l’utilisation de recherchiste, de clercs, d’aide à la traduction ou à la citation ou même la référence à des notes et autorités préparées par les avocats. Les règles de justice naturelle n’interdisent pas à des décideurs de consulter des collègues. Par ailleurs, la participation de tiers au processus de rédaction ne doit pas porter atteinte à l’intégrité du processus et doit maintenir la responsabilité de la rédaction auprès du décideur afin d’éviter toute interprétation selon laquelle un tiers aurait pris le contrôle ou se serait vu déléguer la tâche de rédiger les motifs..." (internal citations omitted). In this case, the award cited several non-existent authorities. The Court pointed out that these hallucinated authorities were not peripheral; they were at the "heart" of the arbitrator's reasoning. Indeed, all of the authorities cited in the arbitrator's analysis were made up. The only real cases referenced in the award were in the section setting out the parties' positions. It was only a matter of time before an award was set aside on this basis. I suspect many others in the arbitration community are doing the most massive of facepalms right now. This sort of conduct does a major disservice to the institutional legitimacy of arbitration as a true alternative to the courts. We can and must do better. #arbitration #AI #Dowhatyouarepaidtodo

The easy portfolio dream is dead. Three NED roles. 60 days a year. £240k. The Times ran a piece yesterday saying FTSE 100 non‑execs now earn a median £81k for around 20 days’ work a year. It sounds like the perfect endgame. Then you read the small print. First, it’s rarely only 20 days of work. Board packs have ballooned, a huge amount of prep is now required. Next comes the liability. In April, a “passive” NED at Wyelands Bank was fined £72,000 personally for failing to exercise due skill, care and diligence – essentially for nodding along while the board got it wrong. Almost the whole annual fee gone in one hit. That £81k isn’t a salary. It’s the price tag on your 30‑year reputation. I have huge respect for my friends on Boards. You’re on the frontline of cyber, AI, ESG and culture risks that barely existed a decade ago. But respect doesn’t pay regulatory fines. If I were joining a Board today, I wouldn’t sign without The Director’s Shield – five protections every NED should quietly check before they say yes: 1. Independent advice, not just “company lawyers” A written right to take independent professional advice at the company’s expense when you judge it necessary. Governance guidance already anticipates this – but it needs to be in your appointment letter, not just in a policy. 2. Unfiltered access to Internal Audit The Head of Internal Audit should have a direct, private reporting line to the Audit Committee chair, with scheduled private sessions in the calendar. If risk is pre‑digested by management before it hits the board pack, you are flying blind. 3. The right to see the raw numbers Not just glossy dashboards. A practical right to look at underlying books, records and key reports when something feels off. You can’t discharge your duties on summaries alone, and UK law and practice recognise that. 4. Protection for dissent Your appointment letter should make it clear that constructive challenge and recorded dissent are part of the role, not grounds to ease you out. Challenge is a core duty, not a nuisance. 5. Transparency on D&O cover Full sight of the D&O policy – especially any “conduct” exclusions or limits on regulatory cover – ideally reviewed with your own adviser. Too many directors find the gaps only after the investigation starts. If a Chair tells you these are “unnecessary”? That’s a red flag. They don’t want a guardian of the company. They want a future scapegoat. For current NEDs: which of these do you actually have – and what have you added yourself? For aspiring NEDs: would having this Shield change your “yes” when the call comes? #Governance #NED #Boardroom #RiskManagement

The worst clause in international contracts? “Mediation first, arbitration next.” Sounds reasonable, looks friendly, and feels balanced. Until your client loses 12 months in procedural deadlock while the other side burns cash and leverage. Dispute resolution is not about fairness. It is about speed control. — Who benefits from delay? — Who survives procedural fatigue? — Who controls the narrative during that time? In cross-border deals, I rarely leave it open. “Mediation shall be initiated within 10 days of notice and completed within 30 days. If unresolved, either party may proceed directly to arbitration.” Something like this saved one of my clients a ton of legal fees. Because contracts are not about preventing conflict. They are about controlling what happens when conflict is inevitable.

🚨 The UK's Arbitration Act 2025 has officially received Royal Assent and will come into force soon! 🚨 This long-awaited reform reinforces Britain’s position as a leading hub for dispute resolution and ensures the UK remains a global destination of choice for arbitration. 🌍 Key changes: 🧾 Choice of Law for Arbitration Agreements – Confirms that the law of the seat governs arbitration agreements unless expressly designated by the parties (reversing the UKSC’s position in Enka v Chubb). ⚖️ Enhanced Impartiality – Arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts about their impartiality. 💪 Stronger Arbitrator Protections – Expands arbitrator immunity for reasonable resignations and the costs of good faith applications for their removal, ensuring they can act independently without fear of undue liability. ⚡ Greater Efficiency – Arbitrators can now issue summary awards if a party has no real prospect of success on a claim, defence, or issue. 👩⚖️ Enhanced Court Support – Courts can now better support arbitration, including by enforcing emergency arbitrator decisions more effectively and issuing orders against third parties (e.g., to preserve evidence or secure witness testimony). 📝 Refined Court Procedures – Courts will only set aside or declare an award ineffective if it would be inappropriate to remit the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration. These widely applauded changes modernize and future-proof arbitration in the UK 👍👍 #ReedSmithIA #DisputeResolution #IA #InternationalArbitration #ADR #ArbitrationAct

After sitting as sole arbitrator in over 10 cases, here are a few things I wish more people avoided: 1) Treating the first case management conference like a mere formality. - Please come prepared, how you start often shapes how the tribunal sees your case. 2) At times, parties file a flood of documents (most irrelevant) just in case. - Less is more. 3) Assuming that arbitrator will figure it out. - Arbitrators are human not mind readers and they cannot connect dots you don’t give. 4) Drafting long and repetitive submissions. - Number of pages do not make it persuasive. It is only clarity that beats complexity. 5) Cross-examining just because you can and nothing of value coming out. - Sometimes, the best question is the one you don’t ask. 6) I have seen counsel mistaking aggression for advocacy. -Civility matters. A lot more than people think. 7) Playing every trick in the book. -Arbitrators see it. It rarely helps! The best counsel I have seen don’t just argue well, they prepare diligently, speak with clarity, and treat the process (and the people in it) with respect. And yes, Arbitrators notice the small things that show how well a case is prepared. #arbitration #advocacy #disputeresolution #arbitratorinsights #lawyers

India’s litigation market is shifting gears, Maulik Vyas reports for The Economic Times. Senior litigators and arbitration experts are ditching large law firms to set up independent chambers. These boutique practices are popping up across Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Delhi, led by former partners from names like Dentons Link Legal, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, and HSA Advocates, the report adds. Driver behind this move? Clients are changing what they value. There is a growing preference for specialist advocacy, flexible service, and better pricing over the traditional full-service model. Additionally, independent chambers avoid conflict-of-interest issues that often plague larger entities. Poornima Hatti, who recently started her own practice in Bengaluru, points out that running a massive firm is time-consuming for senior partners. “Chamber practice allows counsel to appear in a range of matters and not necessarily focus on one specific area,” she adds. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Senior partner at law firm AZB & Partners, further pointed how this trend is also related to a rise in transactional complexity, and an increase in the number of specialised regulatory tribunals. The timing also makes perfect sense. India has nearly 50 million cases pending, and as transactions get more complicated, the need for focused, conflict-free representation is skyrocketing. This leaves the big firms in a bit of a bind regarding talent. To keep their best people, experts suggest these firms might need to rethink their entire business model. “They may have to consider autonomy for litigation practising teams, including flexibility in taking briefs on non-firm mandates or appearance in court and participation in thought leadership, among other things,” points out an expert. How do you think this will impact the future of big law firms? Share your thoughts in the comments below. ✍: Nakul Ghai 📷: Getty Images Source: The Economic Times: https://lnkd.in/dsrwNxGh

Your guide to Accounts Receivable 👇 Ever wondered what REALLY happens when a customer owes you money? Let's dive deep into Accounts Receivable (AR) - the lifeline of your business's cash flow. ➡️ WHAT IS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE? Simply put, it's money customers owe you for goods or services they purchased on credit. But here's what most people don't realize... While you might have amounts owed by banks or owners (those go into different accounts like notes receivable), AR is specifically for customer balances. Don't confuse this with Accounts Payable - that's when YOU owe money to others. Remember: - You send INVOICES to customers - You receive BILLS from vendors ➡️ WHY AR MATTERS? 💸 Direct Cash Flow → Your receivables convert straight to cash, unlike inventory that just sits there 💰 Cash Flow Impact → Long collection cycles can absolutely destroy your working capital ⚠️ Risk Management → Large AR balances mean increased bad debt risk (I've seen this sink businesses!) 📝 Customer Terms → While customers need flexible terms, you need a robust system to manage them 📈 Growth & Stability → Efficient AR management is what fuels your business expansion ➡️ THE ACCOUNTING BEHIND AR Here's where the magic happens (and yes, accounting can be magical! 😉) When you issue an invoice: - Debit Accounts Receivable - Credit Revenue When you finally get paid: - Debit Cash - Credit Accounts Receivable ➡️ TECHNOLOGY IS YOUR FRIEND Stop doing this manually! Here's what modern AR software can do for you: - Automated invoicing - Real-time payment tracking - Built-in reminders - Integration with your accounting system ➡️ PROVEN STRATEGIES THAT WORK 🤝 Friendly Approaches (Try These First!): - Request payment upfront whenever possible - Collect credit card/banking details for autodebit - Follow up consistently (trust me, the squeaky wheel gets paid!) - Request credit references before extending terms - Offer early payment discounts (like 3/7 net 30) ❌ When Friendly Doesn't Work: - Stop service if payment isn't collected (just like your electric company!) - Send the account to collections (yes, you'll get less, but something is better than nothing) - Take legal action (last resort, but sometimes necessary) ➡️ CRUCIAL METRICS TO TRACK These are the numbers you NEED to watch: 📊 Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) Formula: (AR / Net Credit Sales) * Number of days Lower is better - it shows how quickly you're collecting! 📈 AR Turnover Ratio Formula: Net Credit Sales / Average AR Higher is better - shows how many times you convert AR to cash 📉 Bad Debt Expense Ratio Formula: Bad Debt Expense / Total Credit Sales Lower is better - shows how much you're losing to bad debt === The way you handle AR can literally make or break your cash flow. I've seen businesses transform their entire financial position just by getting better at managing their receivables. What's your biggest AR challenge? Let me know in the comments below 👇