• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Patent Arbitration: It Still Makes Good Sense

0
by Beth Graham

Saturday, Aug 15, 2015


Tweet

Peter Michaelson, Michaelson ADR Chambers, LLC, has published “Patent Arbitration: It Still Makes Good Sense,” Landslide (Journal of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law); July/August 2015, pp. 42-47. In his paper, Mr. Michaelson examines the future of patent arbitration following the implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

Here is an excerpt:

Dire predictions have recently been made by commentators pondering the future of patent arbitration in light of the new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) post-grant trial proceedings (post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR)) implemented by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Contrary to those views, patent arbitration is still very much alive, widely used, and, where employed in appropriate situations and structured properly, will likely see increasing use.

This article first considers post-grant proceedings as being complementary to patent arbitration and then discusses how arbitration can be structured to be an effective litigation alternative for resolving patent-related disputes.

This and other scholarly articles authored by Mr. Michaelson may be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network.

Photo credit: opensourceway / Foter / CC BY-SA

Related Posts

  • Mind the Gap: Bringing Technology to the Mediation TableMind the Gap: Bringing Technology to the Mediation Table
  • Does International Arbitration Enfeeble or Enhance Local Legal Institutions?Does International Arbitration Enfeeble or Enhance Local Legal Institutions?
  • Digital Accessibility and Disability Accommodations in Online Dispute Resolution: ODR for EveryoneDigital Accessibility and Disability Accommodations in Online Dispute Resolution: ODR for Everyone
  • Designing and Implementing a State Court ODR System: From Disappointment to CelebrationDesigning and Implementing a State Court ODR System: From Disappointment to Celebration
  • Collective Redress Arbitration in the European UnionCollective Redress Arbitration in the European Union
  • Mandatory Arbitration and the Market for ReputationMandatory Arbitration and the Market for Reputation

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy