The policy rationales that underpin enforcing arbitration agreements may potentially be at odds with those underpinning the class actions regime (see our previous posts here and here). These policy rationales collide when confronting the question of whether plaintiffs can waive their right to participate in a class action through a mandatory arbitration clause and, if so, when this is permissible. Canada and the United States continue to have different approaches to the question of who decides whether a dispute is arbitrable – the arbitrator or the court? With respect to enforcement in the class action context, courts in the United States tend to enforce arbitration clauses such that class actions are precluded. However, in Canada an arbitration clause that acts as a barrier to dispute resolution may be unenforceable and precluded by certain legislation.

Rights holders have traditionally turned to court litigation to protect IP rights such as patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets – or to enforce IP licensing agreements. This brings certain challenges, such as a public forum, unfamiliar laws and procedures, judges with varying IP law expertise, concern for national interests, and the risk that a judgment cannot be enforced in other jurisdictions. Arbitration offers an alternative mechanism and has a number of advantages, including confidentiality, a neutral forum or a single forum, the ability to select arbitrators with technical expertise, symmetrical risk for licensors, and cross-border enforceability of arbitral awards. This chapter considers the viability and desirability of arbitration as a means of resolving cross-border IP and IP-related disputes with a focus on Asia.