The Philippines: IPOPHL proposes amendments to mediation rules

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The Philippines: IPOPHL proposes amendments to mediation rules

All government agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) are directed to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in resolving disputes and cases. This is mandated by the ADR Act of 2004. In the IPOPHL the rules concerning mediation procedure are provided in Office Order No 154. This took effect on October 5 2010. Since then, all cases filed with the adjudication bureau of the IPOPHL, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), such as oppositions, cancellations, and intellectual property violations, are referred to mediation, after the answer has been filed. Since 2010, the office of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services under the BLA, has settled an average of 1/3 of said referred cases, which has greatly lightened the backlog of undecided cases at the BLA. Under 154, the referral to mediation is mandatory, but the mediation itself is voluntary.

On May 5 2018, the IPOPHL released its proposed Revised Rules on Mediation and has encouraged the public to give its comments, with the objective of expediting the resolution of IP cases. The salient points of the Revised Rules are the following:

1) Mediation shall be mandatory for all cases, except for IP violation cases with applications for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction.

2) Cases subject to mediation include: (i) administrative complaints for IP violations; (ii) inter partes cases; (iii) disputes involving technology transfer payments; (iv) disputes relating to the terms of a licence involving the author's right to public performance or other communication of his work; (v) appeals to the office of the director general.

3) Parties are directed to appear before the ADRS, with powers of attorney, if applicable.

4) The mediation proceedings shall be conducted within the IPOPHL offices, but the parties can request that mediation be conducted at other venues. However, all related expenses, shall be borne by the parties.

5) Failure to appear by any party during the mediation proceedings shall be a ground to dismiss the case.

The proposed revised rules maintain the current mediation fees.

Hechanova

Editha R Hechanova

Hechanova & Co., Inc.

Salustiana D. Ty Tower

104 Paseo de Roxas Avenue

Makati City 1229, Philippines

Tel: (63) 2 812-6561

Fax: (63) 2 888-4290

editharh@hechanova.com.ph 

www.hechanova.com.ph

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article