Here are my recent publications on resolution of IP disputes – you can download a copy by clicking on the title.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
“Online Markets and ‘Value Gaps’ – the Australian Approach to News Aggregators“ forthcoming in Proceedings of the ALAI International Congress 2021. This piece explains the history, operation and objectives of the Australian News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code 2021.

“WIPO and IP Dispute Resolution“. This chapter explores and evaluates the dispute resolution services provided by WIPO through its Arbitration and Mediation Centre established in 1993. It begins by describing the genesis for the provision of such services, and the type of services provided, then considers in detail the most important (as judged by impact) of these – the resolution of domain name disputes under the UDRP and its derivatives.

“An Empirical Analysis of 15 Years of Australian Domain Name Disputes“. An empirical analysis of all 470 cases decided in the first 15 years of the operation of the auDRP. This study identifies the factors associated with a complaint’s success, and evaluates the fairness of this system for resolving disputes between trademark owners and domain name registrants.

“Online Dispute Resolution – the Phenomenon of the UDRP“. Chapter 16 in Paul Torremans (ed), Research Handbook on Cross-Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property (2014, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA). This chapter reviews the history and practical utilisation of the UDRP, and identifies and evaluates the criticisms of the UDRP.

“Voluntary Mechanisms for Resolving IP Disputes“ WIPO/ACE/8/10 (2012). Commissioned for the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement, this report – available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian – considers a variety of voluntary mechanisms, including ADR, undertaken by online platforms and public-private partnerships to address counterfeiting and piracy.

“The Evolution of Precedent in Mandatory Arbitration – Lessons from a Decade of Domain Name Dispute Resolution” The Arbitrator and Mediator, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2011). This paper explores why and how, exactly, the ICANN UDRP system for mandatory arbitration of domain name disputes has evolved a comprehensive and largely non-controversial body of precedent, despite the absence of an appellate body and a doctrine of stare decisis.

“The ICANN Domain Name Dispute Resolution System as a Model for Resolving other Intellectual Property Disputes on the Internet” Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2002). This article explains the reasons for the effectiveness of the ICANN UDRP system for resolving domain name disputes, and how that system could be used to resolve disputes about misuse of other IP on the Internet.

Private International Law (PIL)
“Private international law principles for ubiquitous intellectual property infringement – A solution in search of a problem?“ Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2017). An empirical study of 56 cases from 19 jurisdictions dealing with cross-border online infringement of IP rights suggests that the harmonized private international law principles currently being developed for transnational IP disputes may not be necessary, as a matter of practice, in most, if not all, cases.

Professional Privilege
“Patent Attorney Privilege in Australia: Options for Reform” Australian Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 20 (2009).  Patent attorney privilege – the capacity to withhold communications from a court, should litigation arise - is a key aspect of the relationship between a client and her or his patent attorney. This article analyses the operation of the privilege in Australia and overseas, and proposes options for the reform of the privilege in Australia.

“For the Health of the Economy and Patent System: Rationale and Scope of Patent Attorney Privilege“Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice,Vol. 4, No. 1 (2009). This article considers the justifications for patent attorney privilege and suggests that, given the need for clients to have full and frank advice for the effective operation of the patent system, the privilege is justified and should not be unduly limited in its operation.