ICDR Case No. 379-04 - Part 2E - ICDR Awards and Commentaries

Author(s):

Grant Hanessian

Page Count:

16 pages

Media Description:

1 PDF Download from "ICDR Awards and Commentaries"

Published:

September, 2012

Jurisdictions:

Korea,

Taiwan,

International

Practice Areas:

Transfer of Technology,

Intellectual Property,

Contents of Arbitration Agreement,

ICDR

Author Detail:

Grant Hanessian is Co-Chair of Baker & McKenzie's International Arbitration Practice Group and Chair of the Litigation/Dispute Resolution Department of the firm's New York office.

Mr. Hanessian has acted as counsel or arbitrator in more than 100 international cases concerning contract, energy, construction, commodities, insurance, intellectual property and other matters and arising under many national laws and bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. Mr. Hanessian is a member of the Commission on Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce and the ICC Task Force on Arbitration Involving States or State Entities. He is co-editor of three other books on international dispute resolution and is recommended by the Chambers USA Guide in the field of international arbitration.

PDF229.5 KB

$40.00

Description:

Originally from ICDR Awards and Commentaries

Preview page

ICDR CASE NO. 379-04

AWARD
American Arbitration Association (AAA)
International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT 1 and RESPONDENT 2
ICDR Case Number: *****379-04

Subject Matters:
Waiver of contract rights to intellectual property; standing; statute of limitations.

Findings:
First, the Tribunal determined that Claimant has standing as the successor to the company that was a signatory to the agreement. Second, the Tribunal denied all claims and counterclaims, finding that Claimant waived contractual right to the intellectual property at issue when Claimant did not take action in response to Respondent’s open, obvious, and repeated action in marketing and selling the technology as its own. Third, the Tribunal denied Respondent’s counterclaims because, but for the waiver, Respondent would not have any rights to the intellectual property. Finally, the Tribunal determined that even if Claimant had not waived contractual rights, the statute of limitations would have barred the claim.

Table of Contents:

ICDR Case No 379-04
Intellectual property claims arising from an agreement between Korean and Taiwanese parties regarding joint development and manufacture of technology
Commentary
Paul Friedland