Disputes where issues of science and technology are central are
particularly well suited, and I would argue, best suited for ADR.

Consider the lawyer drafting a contract involving complex

technology. Both counsel and the client often justifiably fear that if a

dispute were to arise, explaining the technology to a judge or a jury

would be a daunting task. Many disputes today turn on issues of

complex chemistry, electronics, fluids, aerodynamics, or computer

programming, to name only a few examples. Most judges have

neither science degrees, nor even took a science course in college, but

rather, understandably, studied history, political science, English,

economics or business. Of course, there are jurists with a science

background, but they are a small minority, and with random draw

systems, there is no assurance of drawing one. While it is possible

that one or more jurors in a case may have some advanced science

education, that too is rare. ADR enables parties to select a mediator

or arbitrator(s) with the specific applicable technical education and/or

experience to provide a more effective and reliable means of

resolving these disputes.

 

 

In common parlance, “technology” has come to refer only to

computers and software, and the term “technology litigation” is often

assumed to mean only patent litigation. The term “technology” is far

broader and refers to all of the applied sciences. And, “technology

disputes” encompass far more than just patent and other intellectual

property (“IP”) disputes. Rather, the terms also apply to disputes

where the application of scientific principles, i.e. physics, chemistry,

biology, electronics, mechanics, etc., are required to determine

whether there was compliance with a contract, the cause of a device,

system, or material failure, or patent or other intellectual property

rights. I submit that ADR, whether mediation or arbitration, generally