Search results

Patent litigation consists of non-market actions that firms undertake to access intellectual property rights defined by prior legislation and enforced by the courts. Thus, patent litigation provides an interesting context in which to explore aspects of firm’s non-market strategies. In contrast with prior non-market strategy research that has largely focused on how political institutions define the rules of the game for market competition, non-market actions within patent litigation primarily seek to access and apply these broad policies to specific situations, products, or assets that matter to the firm. Furthermore, because such non-market actions are directly influenced by the firms’ market strategies, they represent a promising area for research on integrated (market and non-market) strategies as well.

The goal of this paper is to explain how generic patent strategies that firms use to support their competitive advantage in the product-market influence non-market outcomes related to the timing of patent litigation resolution. In contrast with prior research that has studied settlement in patent litigation essentially as a one-shot bargaining game, this paper seeks to explain litigation resolution as an outcome of the competing mechanisms of settlement and adjudication that operate continually during litigation. Using a large sample of patent litigations in research medicines and computers, I model the timing of patent litigation resolution in a proportional hazards framework, wherein settlement and adjudication are competing risks. The evidence found is consistent with the proposition that the speed with which patent litigation is resolved by either settlement or adjudication reflects the use of proprietary, defensive, and leveraging patent strategies by firms. These findings also help to explain unexpected and anomalous findings regarding the settlement of patent litigation reported in prior research.

Statutory adjudication was introduced into the security of payment (SOP) legislation as a fast-track payment dispute resolution process with an express object to facilitate cash flow within the construction contractual chain. After more than a decade of the operation of the regime in Australia and Singapore, it becomes apparent that there are many operational problems that jeopardise the intended object of the legislation, particularly in adjudicating complex payment disputes. The aim of this paper is to explore views of the industry stakeholders regarding some operational problems of statutory adjudication of as well as possible solutions.

“Expert interviews” method is adopted to collect the empirical data, involving interviews with 23 practitioners from Australia and Singapore.

The study identified many operational problems jeopardising the attainment of the object of the SOP legislation such as bias of authorised nominating authorities, short adjudication timeframes, inadequate regulations of adjudicators, jurisdictional challenges, involvement of courts and lawyers and complex drafting of the legislation. The study also analysed the views of industry experts with regard to the opportunities for improvement in the operation of the SOP legislation such as following the Queensland model as amended, and introducing a legislative review mechanism and establishing a peer review process. It also suggested specific amendments to make the legislation a more user-friendly.

The implication of this study is a better understanding of the most critical problems inherent in statutory adjudication that need serious consideration by the legislatures and policymakers. In addition, the study also provides some practical measures as suggested by the industry practitioners for each identified problem which may stand as a reliable reference for potential reform in the SOP laws.

There is inadequate empirical research conducted to investigate problems in the operation of statutory adjudication. The study provides original empirical findings which become much necessary nowadays in light of the dynamic moves towards law reform in SOP laws, particularly in Australia. The study provides some practical measures as suggested by the industry practitioners for each identified problem which may stand as a reliable reference for potential reform in the SOP laws.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of the statutory adjudication legislation in Western Australia against its stated aims.

The four objectives of the Western Australia Construction Contracts Act 2004 were identified. For each objective a number of criteria has been devised. In total, 22 registered adjudicators were interviewed, representing 28 per cent of all adjudicators in Western Australia. The interviewees were divided into two groups, one with legal background (being both lawyer and adjudicator), the other without (construction professionals). They were asked to evaluate the criteria against a five-point Likert scale in addition to open ended comments. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to examine whether there were significant differences between the two groups. Annual reports of Building Commissioner, database of the WA State Administrative Tribunal and some law cases were also referred to.

It is found that the West Coast Model is fair to both parties, the adjudications are generally completed speedily according to the prescribed timeframe, and they have been conducted in various levels of formalities. Adjudications are very cost effective for larger claims. However, they are not so for smaller claims. The increasing uptake rate shows that adjudication is getting more popular, while the low appeal rate shows that decisions on dismissal are fair.

The adjudicators’ opinions are only part of the overall picture and that more research on this topic needs to be done.

There have been two distinct legislative models in Australia, commonly known as East Coast Model and West Coast Model. A number of authors have called for a national dual model incorporating both current models. However, it might be too early to discuss the national dual model when there have been very few evaluations on the West Coast Model and among the few there have been problems in the research design. This paper seeks to bridge the gap by evaluating the West Coast Model against its stated aims.

The UK construction industry has been at the forefront of finding efficient, cost‐effective and fair methods of resolving disputes. Therefore, to ensure the 1996 Act is more effective in achieving its intended objective, the new Act came into force on the 1 October 2011 in England and Wales, and 1 November 2011 in Scotland. The purpose of this paper is to explore one of the most important amendments in the new Act, the abolition of the “contract in writing” rule. The extent to which the UK industry is aware of the likely implications of the abolition of the “contracts in writing” rule in the new Act on the adjudication has not been empirically explored – which is the core raison d'être of this paper.

A web‐based, online questionnaire survey method was employed to collect data. Descriptive analysis was used to analyse the data obtained from the 102 completed and usable questionnaires for inference and conclusion. This research employed t‐tests to compare means of small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and large organisations.

The findings suggests that the UK construction industry is well aware of the abolition of the “contracts in writing” rule in the new Act and the industry perception is that it is good for their business. The survey revealed that the amended rule in the new Act would significantly increase number of adjudications, number of hearings before the adjudicator, assessment of witness evidence, costs of the adjudication process, and timescale of an adjudication process. The three most important challenges to the adjudication process with the amended rule in the new Act include: assessment of wholly oral or partly oral contract terms that were agreed, availability of evidence, and availability of information. There are no significant statistical variations between the responses of the SMEs and large organisations.

The paper concludes that the new Act will have significant impact on the UK adjudication. Therefore, the UK industry urgently needs to adopt and become accustomed to quite significant changes in the new Act. It is advised that an industry‐wide awareness‐raising programme on the new Act needs to be developed and deployed.

The paper improves understanding and awareness of the construction industry professionals regarding the likely implications of the abolition of the “contracts in writing” rule in the new Act on the adjudication.

The purpose of this paper is to outline a proposal for a Dual Scheme model of statutory adjudication for the Australian building and construction industry.

The paper deals with the security of payment problem in the Australian construction industry and the legislative response to that problem in New South Wales and elsewhere more generally. The paper highlights deficiencies in current adjudication schemes in Australia and proposes a revised methodology of adjudication by means of the proposed Dual Scheme model. The Dual Scheme is explained in detail and examples are given showing how the Dual Scheme would work in practice.

The Dual Scheme of adjudication allows for adjudication of “progress claims” (just as they are adjudicated now under the “Defined Scheme”), but also provides for separately adjudicated “money claims” in a similar way to that done under the “Non‐specific Scheme”. Both parties to a construction contract can take advantage of adjudication under a Non‐specific Scheme whilst simultaneously maintaining the relative time and cost benefits of the Defined Scheme in dealing with progress payment claims. Implementation of the proposed Dual Scheme would require new legislation.

The Dual Scheme is not a proposal to merely amalgamate two existing models of adjudication in Australia. Rather, it is a Dual Scheme incorporating the philosophy of two disparate systems of adjudication framed in a companionable form. It is hoped that the Dual Scheme may act as a common starting point for eventual agreement between the various interested groups as to what a national scheme of statutory adjudication in Australia will resemble in the future. The Dual Scheme proposal may be of interest in other jurisdictions where statutory adjudication for the construction industry has been introduced or is being contemplated.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings. A major criticism of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA 1996”) was that Section 107 required contracts to be “in writing” for the parties to be able to use statutory adjudication. In response, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 repealed Section 107 of the HGCRA 1996. This paper considers the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings, whereby adjudicators’ may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that, by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication, there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation). Adjudicators may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation).

The questionnaire responses of 38 construction industry professionals were analysed by identifying facts and salient themes. The research aims to identify to what extent the changes have widened the scope for entering into adjudication proceedings and whether there is an increased risk of injustice due to the short timescales involved.

There was significant agreement that parties to an oral agreement have an increased risk of injustice through wrong interpretation of the terms and significant disagreement that allowing oral contracts to be referred to adjudication will encourage the use of oral agreements. In addition, construction industry professionals were interviewed in the Midlands, UK, to obtain their opinions, views and perceptions of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication.

The research is anticipated to be of particular benefit to parties considering referring an oral contract to adjudication.

Adjudication was introduced to the English construction industry in 1996 in response to its litigious nature. At the time, adjudication aimed to provide a time-efficient, cost-effective solution to construction disputes. The industry is concerned that adjudication is not always providing the expected benefits due to increasing cost, the length of time it takes to resolve disputes and the difficulty in maintaining good relationships between the parties in dispute. Mediation is recommended here as a most desirable approach to resolving disputes without affecting the relationship between the parties. However, the benefits of mediation have not been fully appreciated by all due to slow uptake. This paper aims to identify barriers to the greater use of meditation the English construction industry.

This paper presents results from a study that investigated issues preventing greater use of mediation. The study involved 20 case studies of previous dispute resolutions, ten in-depth interviews and 357 usable responses to a structured questionnaire survey involving the English construction industry.

The research found a limited detailed awareness of mediation within the English construction industry due to a lack of detailed knowledge among industry stakeholders and a lack of emphasis from construction contracts. The study revealed that there is strong support for adjudication; however, the majority of those with experience of adjudication would prefer to use mediation as the first step in resolving disputes.

This research identifies the support required for mediation and its preference among those with and without prior knowledge of both adjudication and mediation for the English construction industry. The paper provides an insight into barriers that need to be addressed to increase use of mediation.

The paper seeks to examine how the existence of a “dispute” for the purpose of construction adjudication has been determined and to consider whether direct application of the often cited Halki Shipping Corporation v. Sopex Oils Ltd could lead to a breach of natural justice.

The paper analyses construction adjudication enforcement judgments since 2000 and considers the different approaches taken by the various judges. Cases are considered chronologically and are grouped into distinct phases to demonstrate the development of the law in this area.

There is no definitive meaning of “dispute” and the existence of a dispute in construction adjudication is a subjective issue requiring a practical common‐sense approach relying on the facts, the law and policy considerations. If a strict application of Halki is used in such cases, a breach of natural justice may arise whereas a common‐sense application of the Halki test, taking cognisance of time‐related issues and the original intent of construction adjudication, offers scope to establish a universal policy.

The paper provides a historical summary which should encourage parties to adjudication to recognise that many of the court challenges which arise could be prevented, or could be more easily resolved if a reasonable, common sense approach was adopted.

The paper provides a comprehensive review of construction adjudication case law relating to the existence of a “dispute” and indicates how the law has developed in this area.

This paper aims to examine the potential recovery of own party adjudication costs under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013. The investigation directly applies to England and Wales, but may be relevant to other jurisdictions.

The interaction between The Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013 (derived from European Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions) and the Local Democracy et al. 2009 including reference to case law was explored. A qualitative research framework was used to collect primary data through semi-structured interviews with experienced construction industry adjudication professionals.

It was discovered that adjudicators are awarding own party costs under the Regulations, but there was disagreement on the issues in both the literature and amongst the interviewees.

A definitive judgment is awaited from the Technology and Construction Court.

This paper will be of value to construction industry adjudication professionals.

This paper forms part of on‐going research project being undertaken by the authors into performance of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (hereafter referred to as “the act”), which commenced in amended form on 3 March 2003. The aim of the research was to examine the performance of the act and observe what trends, if any, have emerged in the adjudication process in New South Wales from a claimants' viewpoint.

A cross‐sectional survey of claimants was undertaken using a comprehensive multiple‐choice questionnaire administered by post. In answering the questions, the sampled claimants were required to draw on their experience with the adjudication process in their “most recent” payment claim dispute case. Crosstabs were used to determine a frequency distribution of selected variables. The Chi‐square test of independence was performed for the data collected to measure a degree of independence between the selected variables. The nil hypothesis (H₀) tested is whether variables are independent. Where appropriate, Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated.

The research reveals that: subcontractors' payment claims are generally smaller in value than those made by general contractors; that degree of lawyer involvement in the adjudication process is substantial in terms of document preparation; that the higher the amount of payment claim, the greater the time input on part of claimants in the preparation of an adjudication application; that a positive correlation exists between the actual value of payment claim and its adjudicated amount and the amount of adjudication fees and the adjudicated amount, and that filing of an adjudication certificate in a court is the most successful means of payment recovery.

It is generally accepted that the parties in the construction industry who carry out construction work, or supply goods and services under a construction contract are afforded little or no security of payment. The object of act is to ensure that any person who undertakes to carry out construction work (or who undertakes to supply related goods and services) under a construction contract is entitled to receive, and is able to recover, progress payments in relation to the carrying out of that work and the supplying of those goods and services. Thus, the research looks to contribute to existing knowledge for the purpose of concluding whether or not the Act produces the expected result of increasing security of payment, and whether the results are consistent with the reason for the act.