The Philippines begins implementation of revised 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 begins implementation of revised mediation rules

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
conference-1886023.jpg

Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group explains the main points to note for parties entering mediation to resolve an intellectual property dispute in the Philippines

In the Philippines, mediation is the preferred mode for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). To streamline, and achieve more efficiency in, its delivery of intellectual property dispute resolution services, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) amended the mediation rules through Memorandum Circular No. 2024-007, which became effective on March 29 2024. The salient points are explained below.

  • Mediation shall be mandatory for the following cases:

    • Administrative complaints for violation of intellectual property rights (IPR) and/or unfair competition;

    • Inter partes cases;

    • Disputes involving technology transfer payments; and

    • Disputes relating to the terms of a licence involving the author’s rights to public performance or other communication of their work.

  • IPR cases involving an application for a temporary restraining order/preliminary Injunction, an attachment, or other ancillary remedies shall not be submitted to mediation unless the parties, by written motion, request that the case undergo mediation.

  • Mediation shall be optional for cases that are on appeal at the Office of the Director General.

  • ADR conferences shall be conducted online, hosted by the Bureau of Legal Affairs’ Alternative Dispute Resolution Services unit (BLA-ADRS). The parties shall be briefed regarding their option to submit their dispute to arbitration in accordance with the existing IPOPHL arbitration rules and/or guidelines.

  • The period allowed for mediation is 60 days, which can be extended by 30 days by written motion. If settlement is imminent, the parties can request a longer extension. The request shall be evaluated by the originating office.

  • Failure or refusal of the party who initiated the case to participate in the mediation, and/or pay the fees, shall be grounds for the dismissal of the case. In the event that it is the respondent who fails or refuses to participate and/or pay the required fees, the respondent shall be declared in default. A party may only be excused for non-appearance once, and only if a valid cause or explanation is submitted by motion with the payment of a fee within five days after the mediation meeting.

  • If the mediation fails and/or is terminated, the BLA-ADRS shall again inform the parties of their option to submit their dispute to arbitration; otherwise, the case is returned to the originating bureau for the resumption of the adjudication proceedings.

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