Dispute Resolution In
International Science and
Technology Collaboration
David Rosenberg, GlaxoSmithKline
April 26, 2005
Technical factors to consider in
deciding whether to litigate or use ADR
 Quality of resolution process
 Cost of resolution process
 Speed of resolution process
 Confidentiality of the resolution process
 Territorial considerations
 Impact of the resolution process on future disputes
What do the parties want - the business
need driver
 Do both parties want a win/win or win/lose?
 Do both parties want a business or a legal resolution?
 If either party really wants win/lose or legal resolution, litigation
may well be the only way
 If both parties want/are willing to try to reach a win/win business
resolution, what is the best means of achieving this?
 Can the best means of resolving the dispute be identified in
advance or is it best identified in the context of the specific
dispute?
What drives the business need?
 Whether there is an emotive element to the dispute – “theft” or “I
no longer trust my partner” cases
 Is vindication of position needed? – “I am right and I want the
world to see it”
 Is litigation needed to “prove I am strong”/ will ADR be seen as a
sign of weakness by the other party or 3rd parties?
 Will the dispute impact future commercial conduct or position of a
competitor?
 Is there an ongoing relationship which both parties wish to
protect?
ADR in IP agreements and disputes in
the UK
 Lambert Review of University-Business Collaborations
and “Lambert Agreements”
 www.dti.govt.uk/lambertagreements
 Judicial encouragement of mediation before or during
litigation in UK in future?
GSK practice
 Rarely have ADR clauses in agreements as reduce
flexibility
 De facto engage in informal ADR in most collaboration
agreement disputes – seek to anticipate and resolve at
business level (often before dispute crystallises) rather
than litigate
 Rarely litigate because in fact reach business-driven
dispute resolution