Novel forms of mediation options to boost cultural inclusivity in alternative dispute resolution of IP cases

European intellectual property office mediators, with counterparts in the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) explored a form of mediation option, co-mediation, that allows for cultural differences to be respected and mitigated in settling disputes.

In a fruitful exchange on the second day of the Exchange of Best Practice for Mediators Workshop, EUIPO and IPOPHL mediators tackled the pros and cons of co-mediation. 

Co-mediation refers to the employ of an additional mediator, apart from the court or IPO-appointed one, for a party to a disagreement, to serve as a subject matter expert or a counsel for the party.

IPOPHL offers mediation and arbitration services, through its ADR services unit, under the Bureau of Legal Affairs.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a term referring to dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties to settle their dispute out of the court system and usually with the help of a third party. 

Republic Act No. 9285, or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (ADR Act of 2004) promotes and encourages the use of ADR for the effective and speedy resolution of disputes filed before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies of the government.

“Apart from the international dimension of using co-mediation, this can be useful when there are differences in language and culture, and in general, two heads working on a problem is better than one. Another pro is that there could be mentorship involved between the co-mediators,” said Ms.Cinzia Negro, EUIPO Chairperson of the 5th Board of Appeal. 

“Because of the ethnic mix of the Philippine population, with some 10 percent of the population being Muslim, in instances when there will be engagement with Muslim mediators, this co-mediation can be considered to facilitate the proceedings,” added Mr. Gordon Humphreys, Chairperson of the 5th Board of Appeal at the EUIPO.

Participants in the mediation workshop shared instances of successful mediation proceedings of IP cases between different ethnicities due to the undertaking of a co-mediator. 

Engr. Luwin De La Concha, Operations Head of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services of IPOPHL, said there are no such provisions yet in IPOPHL’s ADR system  for co-mediation this may be in the best to keep the guidelines flexible. 

“I think, currently, since there are no provisions, we are more flexible to accept co-mediation since it’s more viable now than if we put restrictions,” he added. 

Ms. Negro expressed some cons of the process, including increased cost for the party, and possible disharmony between the chosen mediator and the appointed one. 

The workshop was co-organized by EUIPO under its IPKey Southeast Asia flagship program.