Reflections on the EUIPO IP Mediation Conference 2025

Authors: Abigél Farkas, Nika Vuličević, André Zellner and Natasya Wahyudin

Intro: October 2025 marks the 5th IP Mediation Conference hosted by The Boards of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). This hybrid event takes place in Malta, where professionals of the mediation field from all walks of life congregate to the discuss and explore the current landscape of IP Mediation in the present and what the future may hold. Such concepts discussed during this conference included but are not limited to: the current development of AI in mediation and ADR as a whole, the existence of resources of legal remedies by local courts, the importance for the existence of mediation as an accessible form of dispute resolution, and how this feat could be accomplished.

Keynote address: From conflicts to sustainable solutions: Optimizing time and resources in IP dispute management

For his keynote address, Honorable Judge Francesco Depasquale of the EUIPO advocated for mediation as a necessary and central component of modern justice. Reflecting on today’s reality, Hon. Depasquale characterized the current legal landscape as an “Era of Complexity”, with numerous, technical, and often cross-border disputes placing an unsustainable burden on traditional court systems. In response to people seeking faster and more collaborative dispute resolution mechanisms, mediation presents a way forward to improve how IP disputes are managed. As a voluntary, confidential, and flexible process, it offers significant benefits, including time and cost efficiency, the preservation of relationships, and the creation of business-driven solutions.

Hon. Depasquale explained how the Council of Europe European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) plays an important role in developing comprehensive tools, guidelines, and training programs leveraging new technologies to foster mediation. A key initiative of CEPEJ is a report on administrative disputes which outlines 13 concrete measures for systemic integration. Looking ahead, Hon. Depasquale asserted that the mediators of tomorrow must seize opportunities to promote a true culture of mediation across Europe, transforming it from being an alternative, to becoming a natural, intelligent and forward looking choice. 

(Contribution of Abigél Farkas)

Expanding opportunities for successful outcomes: Bringing mediation to other IP areas

The first panel of the conference focused on exploring the potential of mediation in the areas of geographical indications (GIs), patents, copyright and trade secrets. Caroline le Goffic (Full Professor of Private Law, Director of the Master’s Degree in Industrial Property Law – University of Lille, France) elaborated on the protection of crafts and industrial products GIs and the protection for agri-food GIs. When considering mediation, she highlighted that GIs are different from other IP rights, as they are strongly marked by public order. There are many types of disputes where mediation, especially at an early stage, can be beneficial in this field, such as between operators, operators and third parties, or offices and producer associations. On the topic of patent disputes, Tobias Wuttke (Attorney-at-Law, Certified IP Lawyer, UPC) shared trends with the audience from China, U.S., Germany and the UPC. He highlighted that the relevance of mediation in patent matters is growing, especially after exchange of written submissions, and particularly, in the context of SEP/FRAND disputes or lawsuits concerning the extent of damages for patent infringements.

Patricia MCGovern (Chairperson and Head of the IP Department at DFMG Solicitors LLP, Irish Solicitor and European Trade Mark and Design Attorney) discussed the connection between copyright and mediation. Copyright disputes that are handled through mediation are usually complex disputes that can benefit from flexible negotiations, and they often occur in areas such as digital content usage, licensing, royalty disputes and more. Copyright is not as harmonized as other IP areas, which means that due to the different types of national proceedings, often multi-jurisdictional disputes can occur. Lastly Guy Tritton (Barrister at Hogarth Chambers and Accredited Mediator) expanded on mediation of trade secret disputes. He shared that compared to other forms of dispute resolution, which may involve the disclosure of confidential information, mediation can offer a more ideal course of action. Mediation does not require the disclosure of trade secrets in the process of seeking commercial solutions, and can help craft bespoke commercial agreements.

(Contribution of Abigél Farkas)

Fireside chat – How does mediation work for IP-intensive business?

For the second panel of the conference, this session focuses on the critical role of intellectual property (IP) as a key business asset and explored mediation as a practical, commercially strategic tool for resolving IP disputes. Panelists, including IP attorneys, in-house counsel, and brand directors, highlighted the increasing complexity of IP enforcement driven by cross-border e-commerce, counterfeit products, and resource-intensive litigation. Moderated by James South of the CEDR, the accompanying panelists are Alessandra Romeo, Neil Narriman, Rafael Fernández de Alarcón, and Sebastian G. Meyer, where they emphasized that IP conflicts are fundamentally commercial: outcomes affect brand reputation, customer trust, speed to market, and ongoing business relationships, making mediation’s flexibility particularly valuable. As the market develops, companies are beginning to shift from the ideal of strict litigation-focused approach to one driven by long-term business strategy, which prioritizes creative and commercially beneficial outcomes over purely legal victories. Mediation supports this approach by enabling confidential, structured dialogue that preserves relationships, especially in disputes involving partners or licensees.

In the current state of development, mediation has demonstrated its flexibility and practical application in many fields of profession. Most notably; in the resolution of multi-jurisdictional trademark disputes, enabling rapid market re-entry after infringement, reducing costs and operational disruptions, and restoring communication in emotionally charged conflicts. Key advantages of mediation included rapid, market-conscious resolutions; cost containment; confidentiality protecting brand value; creative settlements beyond court remedies; and the preservation or repair of business partnerships. Panelists also noted barriers to wider adoption, such as limited internal knowledge, misconceptions about mediation signaling weakness, and late involvement after disputes escalate. The session concluded that integrating mediation early into IP enforcement strategies, supported by collaboration between corporate counsel, external lawyers, and mediators, offers substantial commercial benefits. Overall, mediation was portrayed not just as an alternative to litigation but as a strategic asset for safeguarding brands, maintaining relationships, and focusing on innovation in today’s fast-moving global markets.

(Contribution of Nika Vuličević)

Showcasing IP Mediation

The third session of the conference, moderated by Péter Lábody, showcased leading IP mediation centres in Europe and beyond, emphasising efficiency, confidentiality, and the preservation of commercial relationships. Experts from EUIPO, PMAC, WIPO, and national offices in Lithuania, South Korea, Ukraine, and France shared their operational models, innovative practices, and measurable outcomes, illustrating how mediation is increasingly integrated into national and international IP systems rather than serving as a mere adjunct to litigation.

Key features of the centres included EUIPO’s confidential, cost-effective, and predominantly online mediation with a settlement rate of around 70%; PMAC’s hybrid mediation-arbitration processes aligned with the Unified Patent Court, targeting expedited resolution for patents; and WIPO AMC’s cross-border IP and technology dispute resolution with flexible timelines and SME-focused tools. National initiatives demonstrated local adaptation: Lithuania offers free non-judicial mediation linked to IP back-office systems; South Korea integrates mediation into trial processes with high Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) participation; Ukraine provides remote online mediation even under challenging circumstances; and in France, there has been an increasing trend of mediation practices being involved within the process of litigation.

From the following developments, global adoption of IP mediation is expanding rapidly, settlement efficacy averages around 70%, and access for SMEs is supported through online tools and low-cost services. Hybrid and accelerated procedures, mediator expertise in IP law and technology, and careful selection of centres and mediators based on dispute type, jurisdiction, and resources were emphasised as essential for success. Overall, the panel reinforced that IP mediation provides flexible, cost-effective solutions that preserve business relationships, with collaboration among IP offices, courts, and mediation centres central to cultivating a robust global mediation culture.

(Contribution of Nika Vuličević)

Next level mediation: Galvanising the lawyer and client into a true tandem team

The fourth session, moderated by Gordon Humphreys, features a panel which gives insight from the perspectives from a lawyer (Michael McKillroth), an IP specialist (Imogen Fowler), and a mediator (Dr. Constantin-Adi Gavrilă), highlighting how lawyers can act as strategic coaches while clients take an active role in negotiations. Panelists stressed that modern mediation practices have shifted dramatically over the past 25 years: confidentiality and neutrality remain core principles, but delivery is now predominantly online, party involvement is more active, co-mediation is common, and mediators can take a proactive and sometimes partially guiding role.

Practical strategies for lawyer-client collaboration included joint preparation, scenario planning, risk profiling, and structured decision frameworks such as the “Three Numbers” (objective, opening offer, BATNA). Lawyers are encouraged to align legal risk with business objectives, educate clients on the value of mediation, and allow clients to lead discussions while acting as behind-the-scenes coaches. The discussion also emphasized multidisciplinary teams, careful mediator selection with domain expertise, and technology platforms that facilitate scheduling, breakout sessions, and quality assurance, especially for complex IP disputes.

This discussion provides key insights into the effectiveness of mediation, which depends on structured preparation, cohesive lawyer-client teamwork, and balancing legal advice with business priorities. Experience and training enhance mediator effectiveness, and hybrid approaches like med-arb can provide rapid binding resolutions when appropriate. Cultural, contextual, and technical considerations, combined with professional standards and certification frameworks such as IMI’s, support optimal outcomes and effective risk management in complex IP mediations.

(Contribution of Nika Vuličević)

Interacting with the future: Leading voices in the quest for combining AI with IP mediation

The fifth session of the conference featured to following panelists: George Lim (Chairperson of SIMC) and Colin Rule (CEO of ODR.com), who shared their views on the usage of Large Language Models in Mediation, the broader future of AI in the field, and demonstrated how their respective companies, the Singapore International Mediation Center and ODR.com, are working on approaches to implement LLM tools into their respective companies.

As the first presenter, George Lim presented a demonstration of MAIA (Mediation AI Assistant), an AI assistant developed by the SIMC. Its stated purpose is to streamline the dispute resolution process, for example, by generating a timeline of events, outlining roles of individuals, or analysing documents and data provided by the parties.

Following this, Colin Rule presented his part of the panel, in which he laid out his views, and his company’s vision on integrating AI into mediation. Rule believes that the AI tools, as they currently exist, should not, and will not be used to replace the third party in a dispute (the Mediator), but will instead enter the field as an additional fourth party. He argued for this approach, that users select mediation precisely because of the “human touch”, which even an advanced AI model will struggle to replicate. Therefore, he sees the role of the “Fourth Party” AI in assisting the other parties. Rule envisions the use of AI in, for example, the processing of large amounts of data or documents, or in order to automatically alert parties, when they attempt to use adversarial or otherwise inappropriate language in written communcations. 

(Contribution of André Zellner)

Judicial leadership in IP disputes: Encouraging mediation as a path to resolution

The sixth session features three consecutive short presentations brought forward by Judges from different jurisdictions. Each point presented demonstrating the Judges’ individual views on in-court Mediation representing three countries, regarding their views on in-court-mediation: Honorable Judge Tatu Leppänen (Finland, Moderator), Honorable Judge Henri Mizzi, Honorable Judge Malik Chapuis (France), Honorable Judge Maja Praljak (Croatia), and Honorable Judge Elke Schwager (Germany).

The first speaker was Hon. Malik Chapuis, from Paris. In France, judges are highly proactive, believing most IP cases are suitable for mediation and successfully terminating 33-43% of cases by simply ordering mandatory party meetings. This system relies heavily on judicial trust-building and the goodwill of lawyers. 

Conversely, Malta, which was represented by Hon. Henri Mizzi operates a more optional, recommendatory system, where judges can impose cost penalties for refusal, though this is rarely enforced. The main obstacles there are the scarcity of professional mediators and skepticism from the legal community.

In contrast, In-court mediation services are highly structured in countries like Croatia (represented by Hon. Maja Praljak) and Germany (represented by Hon. Elke Schwager), often utilizing judges or judicial advisors as mediators, with the service being free after a legal dispute has been initiated. This model presents a distinct challenge: judges must consciously shift their mindset from an authoritative, evaluative role to a neutral, creative one to maintain the parties’ trust and ensure the integrity of the mediation process. Overall, successful initiatives prioritize early case selection based on factors like the nature of the dispute and emotional issues, while excluding cases involving bad faith or the need for a legal precedent.

(Contribution of André Zellner)

Master Mediator Commentary on Mediation in Action

The seventh session of the conference features a unique live role-play demonstration of mediation in progress. The demonstration showcases a trademark dispute between Emotex (Germany) and Emotech (France), with commentary by master mediator Felicity Steadman. The focus of the case in this scenario, is an overlap of trademark registrations between two companies who operate in very similar product sectoral Wherein, the similarities in these two companies may risk creating market confusion with their customers. The demonstration illustrated the full mediation process, from preparation and opening statements to exploration, negotiation, and closure, emphasizing structured facilitation, voluntary participation, and confidentiality. Key mediator strategies included focusing on underlying interests rather than rigid positions, using private caucuses for sensitive discussions, and maintaining balanced, constructive dialogue.

Preparation was highlighted as critical, involving individual meetings with lawyers, clarification of party priorities, and advance agenda-setting. During the mediation, techniques such as reality testing, creative brainstorming, facilitated dialogue, and conditional offers helped parties reframe positions, explore compromises, and generate solutions beyond simple monetary settlement. The session also emphasized the importance of including participants with decision-making authority, such as CEOs and in-house counsel, to enable real-time resolution.

Overall, this live demonstration has effectively shown the audience the importance of not only preparation, but the identification of interests, managing emotions constructively, and generating creative, operationally meaningful solutions. Embedding future-proofing measures, like mediation clauses and mutual notification requirements, was shown to help prevent recurring disputes. The demonstration reinforced that effective mediation combines strategic preparation, skilled facilitation, and interest-based negotiation to achieve durable, mutually beneficial outcomes.

(Contribution of Nika Vuličević)

Closing remarks

To bring the 5th EUIPO IP Mediation Conference to a close, Sven Stürmann highlighted mediation as the “natural, intelligent, and forward-looking way” to resolve disputes, stressing that both early and late interventions can be effective if parties are prepared and committed. He emphasized mediation’s ability to address not just legal issues but underlying relational dynamics, often producing creative, non-monetary outcomes that preserve trust and cooperation.

Institutionalization, certification, and harmonization of mediation centres were presented as key to building trust and standardizing quality, with lawyers playing a crucial role in guiding parties and structuring sessions. Domain-specific applications, including patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, benefit from mediation’s confidentiality and flexibility.

In his final remarks, Sturmann emphasizes that AI can support mediation and decision drafting without replacing human judgment. Bringing forth innovative frameworks like the Singapore Convention for cross-border enforcement of ADR outcomes. Overall, the remarks reinforced that mediation combines effective dispute resolution with relational healing and institutional support, making it a trusted and adaptable tool for businesses worldwide.

(Contribution of Nika Vuličević)