Click here to review the draft and share your feedback.

The International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) has established a Global Working Group for the resolution of technology and life science disputes. This working group is part of the ICDR’s global effort to study and obtain the feedback of experienced international practitioners in this growing area. The result will be a set of practical proposals for what the dispute resolution community, including the ICDR, should do to assist the information technology, life sciences, construction, energy, aviation, aerospace, and many other industries in resolving their technology and intellectual related disputes.

ICDR Survey

One important piece of our work on this project over the last year is the attached survey geared at obtaining important feedback on technology disputes across many industries and in locations around the world. This survey is intended to gather information from all those involved in a technology or life sciences disputes from the drafting of the clause to the enforcement of final resolution of the dispute. In order to gain different perspectives, the survey therefore contains five distinct survey branches that will be taken by different participants, depending on their answers to initial questions about their primary role in dispute resolution (i.e., in-house counsel, external disputes counsel, external transactions counsel, arbitrator, mediator). This means that each participant will take only one branch, which we estimate will take around 15 minutes.  

Share your insights and feedback about resolving technology or life science disputes

We invite you to take this survey and share it with others that are appropriate. We would stress that this survey is not geared only at traditional information technology and life sciences disputes, but rather at the broad range of disputes that raise technology and IP issues across industries. Our preliminary view based on our work to date is that a majority of all disputes involve either a technology or life sciences company, or a technology or intellectual property issue. This is why we would urge everyone to take this quick survey, even if you don’t think of yourself as a technology or life sciences specialist.

Global Working Group’s Executive Summary

The information technology and life sciences industries are currently engaged in a material shift towards arbitration of their disputes. Moreover, as the economy becomes increasingly driven by sophisticated technology, disputes in fields not customarily viewed as technology disputes are increasingly turning on technology-related issues, including, for example, construction, energy, aviation, aerospace, and many other industries. 

The AAA-ICDR® Arbitration of Technology and Life Sciences Global Working Group is considering the unique characteristics of technology and life sciences disputes and how arbitration can best assist the parties in resolving those disputes, as well as technology-related disputes in other fields. The Global Working Group is undertaking a cross longitudinal study of these issues based on types of disputes, recurring themes, and industries, including but not limited to IP-related issues. This will include reaching out to relevant industry participants to understand the reasons why they choose a particular form of dispute resolution and how arbitration can better meet their needs. 

The output will be a set of practical proposals for how arbitration can better serve the technology and life sciences industries and others in resolving their technology-related disputes — and to assist rights-holders in protecting their IP rights —  more efficiently and effectively through arbitration.

Global Working Group Members

Maria Chedid of Arnold & Porter in San Francisco and Kathleen Paisley, an independent arbitrator based in Brussels and New York, lead this initiative by acting as co-chairs of the Global Working Group.

The other distinguished members of the Global Working Group are:

Ethan Berghoff, Baxter International
Cristiano Bernarde, SAP
Frances Bivens,Davis Polk
Brian Casey, Bay Street Chambers
Siegfried Elsing, Orrick
Daniel Floyd, Sony
Scott Forsyth, Microsoft
Patricia Galloway, Galloway Arbitration
Claudia Götz Staehelin, Kellerhals Carrard
Steven Haines, Seagate Technology
Hilary Heilbron, Brick Court Chambers
Karl Hennessee, Airbus
David Kreider, an independent arbitrator
Hongseok Kim, KP & Partners
Sophie Nappert, 3VB
Klaus Reichert, Brick Court Chambers
Peter Ruby, Goodmans
Jose A. Santos Jr., Law Offices of Jose A. Santos
Maxi Scherer, Wilmer Cutler Pickering, Hale and Dorr
Kate Schuelke, Seagate
Robert Shives, Jr., Shinko Electric America
Bryan Sinclair, Cisco
Jennifer Smith, JMS Arbitration
Edna Sussman, Sussman ADR
Luan Tran, King & Spalding
Albert Jan van den Berg, Hanotiau & van den Berg
Melanie Van Leeuwen, Derains & Gharavi International
Wolf von Kumberg, an independent arbitrator and mediator
Rick Weber, Oracle
Ariel Ye, King & Wood Mallesons