Party autonomy and the applicable law to the merits in intellectual property arbitration

The freedom of the parties to choose the applicable law to the merits is often presented as an important benefit of arbitrating disputes involving intellectual property (IP). Yet, the reality is more uncertain and controversial than is commonly assumed. Is party autonomy really permitted in IP arbitration? Should it be? This article answers these questions with regard to patents, trademarks, and copyrights, using recent examples drawn from arbitral practice. It first examines the situation where the parties only made a choice of contract law, and considers in this regard whether that law can and/or should be extended to infringement claims and/or the remedies to infringement, either directly or through the technique of characterization. After discussing the impact of overriding mandatory rules in contractual IP cases, the article then examines the situation where the parties chose a law to govern IP questions, including by way of a broad choice-of-law agreement covering non-contractual problems. It seeks to provide as much guidance as possible to arbitral tribunals, using mainly the distinction among infringement, ownership, and validity issues, and by distinguishing among different scenarios in which party autonomy is more or less acceptable.