In February 2015, tech giants Apple and Ericsson announced1 they were headed to court after they failed to reach a licensing agreement for some of Ericsson’s patented technology. In the modern day legal landscape, which frequently bears witness to mega-suits between these kinds of competitors, this announcement was not particularly extraordinary. But buried in the various stories2 covering the dispute was the fact that Ericsson offered Apple the opportunity to submit their dispute to binding arbitration, and Apple declined. So now, instead of arbitration, the Apple/Ericsson dispute is headed to court. This begs the question: What unexpected benefits might arbitration offer over the court system?
Arbitration is often touted as a faster, less expensive means of dispute resolution. But there are several additional but less discussed benefits that can prove highly valuable to the parties to a complex commercial dispute. One such benefit is that arbitration allows the parties to establish criteria for the selection of the fact finder. And parties can be creative in deciding what to require.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
