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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
The firm’s recent IP hire and launch of a new robotics industry group signal an effort to capture work emerging from AI entering the physical world
Another firm sets up shop in Dallas, bringing its patent disputes capabilities to one of the US’s busiest litigation venues
Entrepreneurial IP lawyers are still launching specialist firms, but increasingly with larger teams, broader coverage and greater infrastructure than the boutique model once implied
Jevon Louis explains how Covid led to a focus on local clients, discusses why mediation is successful in Singapore and reflects on the growing demand for AI advice
An increase in instructions from domestic companies and litigation for international clients are driving success for the Chinese IP firm, according to two lead partners
Ankur Sangal said he wants his team, nearly 30-strong already, to respond to a growing demand for specialist, commercially focused IP advice in a ‘rapidly evolving’ Indian market
As AI adoption accelerates across corporate IP departments, Simon Webster, president of IP at Clarivate, argues that success will depend less on technology alone and more on data quality, workflow design, and organisational readiness
After months of speculation over his next move, former Texas patent judge Alan Albright has found a new home at the firm’s Austin office
Gift this article