11 November 2022
Technology is fundamentally shifting the way in which individuals, businesses and governments interact across sectors. The landscape is ripe for tech disputes, particularly in three key areas: post-M&A, long-term commercial collaborations and international investment protection. Arbitration is – rightfully – a prime forum for resolving such disputes. Tech arbitrations are, however, complex and raise a number of difficult practical and strategic issues, which we explore in this article.
Why does ‘tech disputes’ warrant its own chapter in the 2023 European Arbitration Review? The answer lies in a combination of three basic truths about society, disputes and arbitration, respectively.
First, technology (spanning AI, advanced robotics, data analytics to the internet of things (IoT)) is fundamentally shifting the way that individuals, businesses and governments interact with one another.^[1] At the corporate level, tech M&A deal value and volume continue to dominate in 2022, including in the EMEA region.^[2] Tech-driven joint ventures (JVs) and other collaborative agreements have also become a prominent feature of corporate strategy across a number of sectors.^[3] At the governmental level, tech is raising novel questions about policymaking and challenging the boundaries between commercial activities and government regulations.^[4] This is true especially in the European Union, which even more than any other major jurisdiction, is currently adopting and proposing significant new regulations in the tech space, altering the legal landscape for intermediary services such as platforms and marketplaces, the use of artificial intelligence and the commercialisation of data.^[5] The European Union’s regulatory ambitions have and will result in an increasingly regulated environment, heightened compliance requirements and greater legal risks for tech companies operating in the European Union.
Second, wherever there is rapid change increasing complexity and significant uncertainties, there will be disputes. Thus, it is of no surprise that across all stakeholder levels, tech disputes are becoming more prevalent. In recent years, commercial tech disputes across the globe and, in particular, in Europe, have made headlines, ranging from the telecommunications and IT sectors to the med-tech space,^[6] with many more such arbitrations staying out of the public eye.^[7] Moreover, the proportion of tech disputes at ICSID appears to have doubled in 2022 compared to three years ago.^[8]
Third, and relatedly, arbitration is in principle well suited to resolve tech disputes.^[9] Arbitration promises to offer not only heightened confidentiality prized by tech companies, but also broad international enforceability, neutral and expert decision-making and increased efficiency.^[10]
The interface between technology and arbitration can be analysed in great depth from many different angles – far more than could be adequately addressed in a brief survey review such as this one. We therefore do not aim for completeness or exhaustiveness, and refrain entirely from addressing fascinating topics such as the use of technology in arbitration, blockchain ADR^[11] and the question of which IP rights may be non-arbitrable in some jurisdictions. Instead, we focus on the key trends, issues and challenges for the tech industry moving forward and consider the use of international arbitration as a preferred means of dispute resolution^[12] in three key areas: first, tech M&A disputes; second, disputes arising in the context of commercial collaborations,^[13] with distinguishable features from tech M&A disputes; and third, investor–state disputes centred around technology as the protected investment.
The tech industry encompasses a wide range of sub-industries, ranging from the earlier electronics and IT sectors to newer-age companies that rely heavily on intangible assets such as software, algorithms, AI-powered systems and data.^[14]
Historically, tech disputes usually arose out of cornerstone agreements like research and development, licence or distribution and sales agreements (ie, agreements about the creation, protection or sale of technology).^[15] It was (and is) common to see disputes over missed milestones, quality of service, payment obligations, breach of licences or exit terms.
More recently, however, tech-related M&A deals and related disputes have significantly increased.^[16] The year 2021 was record-breaking in M&A and, although there was some decline in the M&A market in the first half of 2022, tech remains a growth driver and continues to be a relatively hot and seller-friendly market.^[17] The EMEA region has experienced a particularly high level of deal activity in the tech sector in 2021 and the first half of 2022.^[18] Moreover, we see that in contrast to earlier times in Europe, raising post-M&A arbitration claims is becoming the norm rather than the exception^[19] and is no longer perceived to be a last-resort measure. In some cases, these arbitrations may even be seen as an acceptable mechanism to achieve a post-closing price adjustment.
Combine this with the unprecedented level of commercial and legal changes in the tech industry and we can expect more disputes arising throughout the cycle of tech-related M&A transactions, ranging from early-stage investments post-closing to initial public offerings.^[20]
This expected rise of M&A disputes raises the question of whether parties can rely on arbitration as a proper means to resolve such disputes. In our experience, this is generally the case, as arbitration offers important advantages at various stages:
Meanwhile, parties should also bear in mind some tech-specific caveats to the suitability of arbitration, especially:
In our experience, the following issues stand at the heart of many tech M&A arbitrations.
First, there are difficulties associated with the valuation of the (complex) business models in tech, particularly given the competitive and fast-changing nature of the market and today’s seller-driven hot market. High valuations – but often with significant contingent payment components – are common fodder for disappointment by one side or the other. Moreover, the value of tech companies depends heavily on the assumptions that they can establish and maintain a profitable business model and their competitive edge over time.^[27] If, however, a new competitor with superior technology abruptly enters the market or another significant adverse external event occurs, this can completely negate earlier planning assumptions in an M&A deal. The valuation forming the basis for the purchase price may then prove to be significantly incorrect if it fails to take into account such risks. This increases the risk of disputes under several heads, in particular for breaches of warranties, fraudulent misrepresentations, culpa in contrahendo (fault in conclusion of a contract) and in relation to earn-out provisions.^[28]
Second, buyers may also face unique challenges conducting due diligence on tech businesses. More than other sectors, tech businesses often rely on ‘intangible assets’ such as patents, trademarks, copyrights or trade secrets. Assessing intangible assets is no easy task, even under the best of circumstances, let alone under the tight deal time frames frequently observed in the recent sellers market. In contrast to a physical asset such as a machine that can be inspected, the assessment (and valuation) of the validity of IP rights and their ownership is much more challenging – and in some cases, simply not fully possible (eg, with respect to trade secrets). Furthermore, tech is also a people business. From a deal perspective, in particular, the risk of departing key employees and onboarding key employees and the related risk of misappropriation of trade secrets needs to be considered in the transaction documents and might lead to disputes over breach of (IP) warranties or the valuation disputes described above.
Third, there can often be a significant disparity in sophistication and bargaining power between the parties. This applies most prominently in transactions where an established player is buying a start-up. But this can also be true even for transactions between two mature commercial entities, given sellers’ recent penchants for instituting tightly managed auction processes with limited room for buyers’ diligence or contractual protection. As mentioned before, this can lead to disappointed expectations and increase the likelihood for disputes and claims for misrepresentation.
A broad range of potential issues may trigger a tech-related M&A dispute, and it is usually not possible for either party to succeed in insulating itself against all material risks.^[29] Parties are, therefore, well advised to anticipate from the beginning of a transaction that they could end up in a dispute down the road and act accordingly at every stage. In our experience, in particular the following key takeaways should be considered:
Aside from increased tech-driven M&A activity, we also observe a noticeable uptake of commercial collaborations between companies in the tech sector.^[30]
Pressure to develop innovative solutions and reduce go-to-market times have incentivised businesses to look more frequently for partners with complementary and specialised capabilities to drive forward specific projects.^[31] An illustrative example is the automotive industry, which is in the midst of a fundamental digital transformation: most OEMs and their suppliers now work together with software providers, battery producers and start-ups to develop solutions for self-driving and electric vehicles, charging or mobility-as-a-service solutions.^[32] Similarly, in various parts of the world, urban city planners and construction companies are partnering up with tech outfits to create ‘smart cities’ that work more efficiently and intelligently.^[33] In the IoT space, the global market looks bullish, with companies across different sectors transforming their businesses towards more connected, data- and software-driven digital operating models.^[34]
Such commercial collaborations are different from M&A transactions in a fundamental way: they are typically entered into for a longer term, with the parties establishing a symbiotic relationship and sharing the common goal of having the collaboration succeed. In comparison, commercial parties in an M&A context are usually engaging in a one-off transaction and typically have (at least partially) opposed interests. Despite this conceptual difference, arbitration offers the same benefits of specialised knowledge and expertise, as well as heightened confidentiality protections adapted for the commercial tech environment. However, commercial collaborations also raise a number of unique challenges and novel issues.
The potential for disputes occurring in a commercial collaboration is enormous. While the issues that can give rise to conflicts are manifold, in our experience, they most commonly arise in relation to the following general topics:
Against this backdrop, it may – at first blush – be surprising that, statistically speaking, arbitrations arising in connection with commercial collaborations have thus been relatively rare.^[39] In our view, the explanation is twofold. First, unlike in an M&A scenario, collaboration-type disputes typically arise when the collaboration is still in full pursuit – with mutual dependencies still in place. Arbitration is, thus, perceived as a means of last resort, an action one would pursue only when the termination of the partnership is unavoidable.^[40] Most parties will file a claim only when all other options (eg, discussions in steering committees, mediation, expert determination and negotiations between C-level management) have not been fruitful – and collaboration agreements are often designed accordingly. Second, as noted above, the age of commercial collaborations is just beginning, and the time horizon for these collaborations is long. Thus, we believe it reasonable to expect that the recent trend towards more and bigger tech collaborations will result in a range of disputes – including some very complex and significant ones – going to arbitration in the years to come.
In light of the nature of issues highlighted above, we have compiled some key issues to consider for businesses entering into a commercial collaboration:
One of the defining questions of our time is how to regulate tech in a way that both fosters technological innovation and ensures that such innovation fairly benefits society as a whole.^[41] Tech today is thus at the core of government policymaking, bringing into question regulations spanning free speech, citizens’ privacy, defence, economic security to public health and safety.
Governments are moving to regulate tech, and foreign tech investors, in a variety of ways. European countries are banning Huawei from participating in 5G networks over national security allegations.^[42] The US is advocating for tech companies to ban TikTok over privacy and security concerns.^[43] In light of its war on Ukraine, Russia has also banned some social media companies to combat ‘fake news’ and ‘foreign interferences’.^[44] Indonesia and Pakistan are imposing licensing and data sharing requirements.^[45] Following a Colombian court’s finding on competition law violations, Uber is exiting the market altogether.^[46]
Faced with increasing government activism, companies are starting to turn to the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. Investment agreements provide for a range of protections, in essence against arbitrary and unlawful interferences by the host state.^[47] When an investor is of the view that the host state has violated these protections, it can bring a direct claim against the host state before an international arbitral tribunal. Such is the ISDS’s advantage in allowing the investor to seek recourse against the host state outside of its national courts.
In the same examples cited above, Huawei has filed ICSID claims against Sweden over the 5G ban,^[48] and Uber is also looking to bring claims against Colombia over the ban of its ride-sharing app.^[49] Other examples of recently initiated cases in the tech space include PCCW’s claims against Saudi Arabia under the China–Saudi Arabia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) over the cancellation of its telecoms operating licence,^[50] Digicel’s claim against Papua New Guinea over additional taxes on telecom firms,^[51] L1bero Partners’ claims against Mexico under the North American FTA (NAFTA) and the Italy–Mexico BIT over regulations affecting the use of its ride-sharing app,^[52] and Neustar’s ICSID case against Colombia in taking over its management of an internet domain.^[53] Not only have we arrived at the new era of ISDS-tech disputes, but these examples also show that there are effectively no limits to the factual scenarios in which these claims may arise.
Given the increasingly complex regulatory environment, ISDSs will play an important (and likely controversial) role in determining the boundaries between investment protection and the host states’ right to regulate. As with the numerous examples mentioned, arbitral tribunals will be asked to grapple with difficult questions raised by the cross-cutting use of tech today and its intersections with core policy issues such as security, privacy and even free speech. However, as we observe below, while ISDS provides a general framework for tech companies to safeguard their foreign investments in the host state, the exact contours of these protections in relation to tech companies and their assets are, in some important respects, still to be determined.
Most investment treaties provide for a wide definition of ‘investment’ that is broad enough to encompass various forms of tech and tech-related resources. Certain treaties expressly protect IP rights in various forms,^[54] including those that do not typically provide that an ‘investment’ may be of ‘every kind’.^[55] Under this broad definition, physical tangible assets, such as hardware, and intangible assets, such as operating licences and IP rights, constitute protected tech investments.
However, in some areas, investment treaties continue to fall behind tech developments. Data, the ‘new oil’ of the digital economy,^[56] is one such prominent example of a gap in treaties provisions. Most treaties were concluded in the 1990s, pre-dating the advent of such new technologies,^[57] and have not been updated to explicitly address the question of whether ‘data’ can be an investment. The issue is whether data can be treated as an IP right or an intangible asset, and therefore qualify as a protected investment. This again raises difficult issues associated with the nature of data and whether it is capable of giving rise to rights. The position is far from settled,^[58] with some countries, including the United Kingdom, now considering legislative reforms to specify the qualifying criteria for data as an asset, notably requiring the quality of a rivalrous good.^[59] In contrast, European regulations such as the Regulation on the free flow of non-personal data and the proposed Data Act adopt the opposite presumption of the ‘free movement of data’ and data as a non-rivalrous good.^[60] Clarifications on the status of data are important and long overdue in Europe, particularly in light of the increasing number of related EU regulations.^[61] In other words, watch this space.
Against this backdrop, it is important for tech companies to be aware of the substantive protections offered for their investments, notably: (1) against wrongful expropriation; (2) fair and equitable treatment; and (3) full protection and security.^[62] However, the scope and limits of these protections are in flux with new types of tech assets, changing jurisprudence and state practices in investment agreements. There are, thus, many interesting questions, which to date remain unanswered.
It is well-established that host states may only lawfully expropriate the property of foreign investors if done in a non-discriminatory manner, for a public purpose, in line with due process and with just compensation.^[63] In the tech context, the classic expropriation could be a direct taking of a physical asset such as a tech company’s hardware or its brick-and-mortar operations by a host state.^[64] Additionally, other intangible assets, such as licences and IP rights, may also be expropriated.^[65]
However, some difficulties arise when we apply the test for indirect expropriation to current challenges faced by tech companies. In today’s regulatory environment, social media companies appear to be particularly affected, with bans over their operations and software applications^[66] and compulsory data sharing requirements.^[67] Turning to each of these factual scenarios:
The fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard protects an investor’s legitimate expectations of the regulatory environment and prevents unlawful government interference. This is a particularly effective tool as it speaks to the tech companies’ legitimate expectation that the regulatory environment will not change significantly to undermine the value of their investments over time. Out of the six active ISDS disputes in the tech industry, at least four have alleged a breach of the FET standard and in a variety of factual scenarios,^[70] including alleged irregularities in the public tender processes,^[71] the termination of an existing concession,^[72] a failure to comply with agreed obligations to facilitate the operation of the investment^[73] and government actions requiring telecommunication companies to cease support to the tech company.^[74] These permutations speak to the versatility of the FET standard, which may be useful for tech companies when challenging a variety of regulations that impact their investments.
However, given the fast-changing nature of tech, it is questionable when and if investors may have a legitimate expectation to a stable regulatory environment.^[75] In new-age tech industries such as software, data and blockchain where much is still in flux, states would likely argue that there can be no legitimate expectations of any regulatory stability and that governments cannot be constrained from legislating to protect key national interests. Moreover, more states are seeking to restrict the protections afforded by the FET standard, including through newer investment agreements in an effort to take back regulatory control, such as with India’s removal of the FET clause in its 2016 Model BIT,^[76] and clarifications under the NAFTA and ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA, linking the content of the FET clause to the customary international law standard.^[77]
Full protection and security (FPS) serves as a diligence obligation on host states to protect foreign investments from harm against acts of the host state and its entities, as well as those of third parties.^[78] While FPS is traditionally understood in terms of physical protection and security,^[79] this has been extended on occasion to include non-physical protection,^[80] particularly when the treaty defines an ‘investment’ to include intangible assets^[81] or fails to exclude non-physical protections.^[82]
In recent times, tech companies face an increasing threat of cyberattacks that emanates from private hackers, as well as state-sponsored (or at least tolerated) outfits.^[83] Against this backdrop, the FPS standard may become increasingly relevant in determining the extent of the host state’s obligations to protect the assets of tech companies against cyberattacks in the host state. While there is no award thus far that has considered the extent of a host state’s FPS obligation over intangible tech assets, it has been suggested that cyberattacks are no different from civil unrests in which an obligation to accord FPS has generally been upheld.^[84] Holding that a host state is obliged to provide FPS to a tech asset could expose the state to an obligation to provide a stable and secure internet infrastructure as against cyberattacks^[85] and to provide effective legal redress when these occur.^[86]
Nonetheless, it is important to emphasise that there are two opposing schools of thoughts on the appropriate protections granted under the FPS standard. The law is far from settled on whether FPS can be accorded to intangible tech assets, and the extent of those due diligence obligations imposed on host state to prevent harm.
The ultimate goal is for the investor to receive compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the host state’s breaches of its substantive obligations.^[87] Tribunals can order a range of remedies, with compensation (damages) being the most frequently awarded.^[88] However, the unique features of some tech investments may complicate a tribunal’s consideration of remedies.
First, there are uncertainties with the valuation of tech investments in which the economic value has yet to crystallise. Taking the example of big data, discrete data points may not make sense unless accumulated with other data and read together as part of an overall model. In a scenario where an investor is seeking to challenge mandatory data transfers to the host states as an expropriation, it may not be able to readily assign an economic value to such assets in its claim.
Second, there are tech companies that are in their infancy but exhibit future high growth potential. Although tech claimants would only need to prove the quantum of their damages with ‘some’ and not absolute certainty, the unique nature of some businesses may render it difficult to show that their lost profits or future damages were not too speculative, uncertain or remote to be awarded by the tribunal.^[89]
Third, the different ways in which a host state may breach its obligations to protect the foreign tech investment may also give rise to complications when analysing issues of causation and the investor’s contributory negligence. For example, the failure to provide FPS in a foreign cyberattack would raise issues surrounding whether vulnerabilities in the investor’s own servers served as a contributing cause.
We are now likely at the start of a new wave of ISDS claims in relation to government regulations and activities in the tech space. There are a number of uncertainties that should be considered by tech companies considering initiating arbitration, including:
In the above, we have only begun to scratch the surface as to the possibilities for, and implications of, tech disputes. Whether we are considering the commercial sphere (tech M&A and collaborations) or investor–state sphere, the common theme remains that arbitration can and will likely play a bigger role in helping parties to resolve such disputes.
We have, where relevant, highlighted some overall uncertainties and areas to watch. Moving forward, it is important for tech companies to continue to keep track of these developments that fundamentally affect the protections of their commercial assets.
^* The authors further thank our interns Param Bhalero and Nataliia Kichuk for their research assistance rendered in preparing this article.
^[1] Klaus Schwab, ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond’, World Economic Forum, 14 January 2016 (accessible at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/).
^[2] Richard Summerfield, ‘What is driving the tech M&A boom?’, Financier Worldwide Magazine, June 2022 (accessible at https://www.financierworldwide.com/what-is-driving-the-tech-ma-boom#.Yt_E_HZByUk); GlobalData, ‘Mergers and Acquisitions Deals by Top Themes and Industries in Q2 2022 – Thematic Research’, 18 July 2019 (accessible at https://www.globaldata.com/store/report/m-and-a-deals-by-theme-and-sector-analysis/). As noted in the overview by GlobalData, the TMT sector continued to dominate in terms of both M&A deal value and volume, with 2,718 deals worth $342 billion recorded in Q2 2022. See also MergerMarket, ‘Deal Drivers: EMEA HY 2022’, p 4.
^[3] James Bamford, Gerard Baynham, David Ernst, ‘Joint Ventures and Partnerships in a Downturn’, Harvard Business Review, September-October 2020 (accessible at https://hbr.org/2020/09/joint-ventures-and-partnerships-in-a-downturn). While the authors were writing in the context of the impact of covid-19, their comments that JVs and partnerships can be a useful vehicle for sharing costs, reducing capital and positioning for future growth after a recession remain relevant today.
^[4] Klaus Schwab, ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond’, World Economic Forum, 14 January 2016 (accessible at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/).
^[5] By way of example, and following major legislative cornerstones such as the GDPR, the EU is currently seeing the Data Governance Act, the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act being adopted still in 2022, with proposals for a Data Act and an AI Act already on the table. For more information, see European Commission, ‘The Digital Services Act package’, Policies, 5 July 2022 (accessible at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package) and European Commission, ‘A European Strategy for data’, Policies, 7 June 2022 (accessible at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/strategy-data).
^[6] See Sebastien Perry, ‘LCIA award upheld in med-tech dispute’, Global Arbitration Review, 14 April 2022 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/lcia-award-upheld-in-med-tech-dispute); Cosmo Sanderson, ‘Janssen secures win in cancer drug royalties dispute’, Global Arbitration Review, 8 April 2022 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/janssen-secures-win-in-cancer-drug-royalties-dispute).
^[7] The ICC Case Information database collates information in ICC cases registered as of 1 January 2020 in relation to the sector of the industry and counsel representing the parties. Based on these two elements, we have identified six potential cases involving the telecommunications and IT industries that could involve European parties (Cases ID 01531, 01563, 01577, 01679, 01873, 02011). As the identity of the parties are confidential, we have used the law firms that they have chosen to retain as a proxy for determining the nexus of the dispute to Europe.
^[8] International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ‘The ICSID Caseload Statistics – Issue 2022-2’, pp 12, 25 (accessible at https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/The_ICSID_Caseload_Statistics_2022-2_ENG.pdf), which notes that 7 per cent of its cases registered from 1966 to 2021 involved the information and communications sector. Nonetheless, a review of ICSID’s earlier caseload statistics show that there has been a general rise in the percentage of tech disputes comprising ICSID’s annual case load in recent years, with tech disputes making up 10 per cent of ICSID’s newly registered cases in 2022 (thus far, at the time of writing), 11 per cent in 2021, 12 per cent in 2020, and 5 per cent in 2019.
^[9] Earlier in 2016 and 2017, two surveys suggested that there was growing receptiveness to the use of arbitration to resolve tech disputes. See Queen Mary University of London, ‘Pre-empting and Resolving Technology, Media and Telecoms Disputes International Dispute Resolution Survey’, November 2016, p 25, which suggests that 92 per cent of surveyed tech companies were in support of the use of arbitration. See also Gary Benton, Chris Compton and Les Schiefelbein, ‘Cost is the Top Tech Litigation Problem, Survey Shows Arbitration Strongly Preferred for Specialized Expertise’, Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, 2017, p 2 (accessible at https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-2017-Survey-Report.pdf).
^[10] ibid.
^[11] See, for instance, Marike R. P. Paulsson, ‘The Blockchain ADR: Bringing International Arbitration to the New Age’, 9 October 2018 (accessible at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/10/09/blockchain-adr-bringing-international-arbitration-new-age/).
^[12] See Queen Mary University of London, ‘Pre-empting and Resolving Technology, Media and Telecoms Disputes International Dispute Resolution Survey’, November 2016, p 7, which notes that arbitration was most preferred as the type of dispute resolution mechanism, although litigation was most frequently used by parties.
^[13] Collaborations are also sometimes referred to as ‘contractual JVs’.
^[14] Klaus Schwab, ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond’, World Economic Forum, 14 January 2016 (accessible at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/).
^[15] Gary L. Benton, Steven K. Andersen, ‘Technology Arbitration Revisited’, Dispute Resolution Journal, July 2020, Volume 74, No. 4, pp 1-25 (accessible at https://go.adr.org/rs/294-SFS-516/images/Benton% 20and%20Andersen%20-%20Technology%20Arbitration%20Revisited.pdf).
^[16] Heiko Ziehms, Anna Baird, ‘A Record-Breaking Year in M&A: The Consequences for Damages in Post-M&A Dispute Resolution in Arbitration’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 16 June 2022 (accessible at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/06/16/a-record-breaking-year-in-ma-the-consequences-for-damages-in-post-ma-dispute-resolution-in-arbitration/).
^[17] Heiko Ziehms, Anna Baird, ‘A Record-Breaking Year in M&A: The Consequences for Damages in Post-M&A Dispute Resolution in Arbitration’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 16 June 2022 (accessible at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/06/16/a-record-breaking-year-in-ma-the-consequences-for-damages-in-post-ma-dispute-resolution-in-arbitration/).
^[18] MergerMarket, ‘Deal Drivers: EMEA HY 2022’, p 4 noting that TMT sector was expected to deliver the highest M&A volume over the remainder of 2022 compared to other sectors in EMEA.
^[19] Heiko Ziehms, Anna Baird, ‘A Record-Breaking Year in M&A: The Consequences for Damages in Post-M&A Dispute Resolution in Arbitration’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 16 June 2022 (accessible at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/06/16/a-record-breaking-year-in-ma-the-consequences-for-damages-in-post-ma-dispute-resolution-in-arbitration/).
^[20] Gary L. Benton, Steven K. Andersen, ‘Technology Arbitration Revisited’, Dispute Resolution Journal, July 2020, Volume 74, No. 4, pp 1-25 (accessible at https://go.adr.org/rs/294-SFS-516/images/Benton% 20and%20Andersen%20-%20Technology%20Arbitration%20Revisited.pdf).
^[21] See Queen Mary University of London, ‘Pre-empting and Resolving Technology, Media and Telecoms Disputes International Dispute Resolution Survey’, November 2016, p 7, which summarises the attractive features of international arbitration for TMT disputes as according to the respondents to the survey from the TMT sector. See also Gary Benton, Chris Compton and Les Schiefelbein, ‘Cost is the Top Tech Litigation Problem, Survey Shows Arbitration Strongly Preferred for Specialized Expertise’, Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (2017) (accessible at https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-2017-Survey-Report.pdf), p 2.
^[22] Nasser Ali Khasawneh, Maria Mazzawi and Ricardo Christie, ‘Arbitration and the Advent of New Technologies’, Global Arbitration Review, 29 July 2022 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-telecoms-arbitrations/first-edition/article/arbitration-and-the-advent-of-new-technologies).
^[23] See Queen Mary University of London, ‘2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration as a System’, pp 3, 27, 28, which suggests that confidentiality is of importance and should be an opt-out rather than opt-in feature.
^[24] Lucy Greenwood, ‘A New York Convention Primer’, ABA Dispute Resolution Magazine, 12 September 2019 (accessible at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/dispute_resolution/publications/dispute_resolution_magazine/2019/summer-2019-new-york-convention/summer-2019-ny-convention-primer/).
^[25] See Emily Hay, ‘Issues of Arbitrability in Telecoms Arbitrations’, Global Arbitration Review, 29 July 2022 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-telecoms-arbitrations/first-edition/article/issues-of-arbitrability-in-telecoms-arbitrations).
^[26] See Emily Hay, ‘Issues of Arbitrability in Telecoms Arbitrations’, Global Arbitration Review, 29 July 2022 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-telecoms-arbitrations/first-edition/article/issues-of-arbitrability-in-telecoms-arbitrations).
^[27] See Kai Schumacher and Christoph Wilmsmeier, ‘Valuation Approaches in Telecoms Arbitrations: Commercial Arbitrations’, Global Arbitration Review, 29 July 2022 discussing several valuation methods (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-telecoms-arbitrations/first-edition/article/valuation-approaches-in-telecoms-arbitrations-commercial-arbitrations).
^[28] Heiko Ziehms, Anna Baird, ‘A Record-Breaking Year in M&A: The Consequences for Damages in Post-M&A Dispute Resolution in Arbitration’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 16 June 2022 (accessible at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/06/16/a-record-breaking-year-in-ma-the-consequences-for-damages-in-post-ma-dispute-resolution-in-arbitration/).
^[29] This is true even in cases where W&I insurance is procured, given that such insurances typically do not cover risks that cannot properly assessed in a due diligence or risks such as freedom to operate, conflicting third party IP rights or open-source software risks.
^[30] For a brief overview on issues to watch out for in respect of commercial collaborations, see Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, ‘Tech transactions – The secrets of successful corporate collaboration’ (accessible at https://www.freshfields.de/our-thinking/campaigns/technology-quotient/tech-transactions/corporate-collaboration).
^[31] Indeed, a 2022 list of top 10 innovative JVs reference at least six tech-related collaborations. See David Lidsky, ‘The 10 most innovative joint ventures in 2022’, Fast Company, 3 August 2022 (accessible at https://www.fastcompany.com/90724420/most-innovative-companies-joint-ventures-2022).
^[32] See Zachary Shahan, ‘Can Argo.AI Make Ford & Volkswagen Self-Driving Leaders?’, CleanTechnica, 5 July 2020 (accessible at https://cleantechnica.com/2020/07/05/can-argo-ai-make-ford-volkswagen-self-driving-leaders/); Patrik Fiegl, ‘TTTech Auto and ZettaScale start collaboration on DDS network protocol’, TTTech Auto (accessible at https://www.tttech-auto.com/software-defined-vehicle-dds-network-protocol); Dana Hull, ‘Aurora Partners With Toyota in Bid to Bring Autonomy to Masses’, Bloomberg, 9 February 2021 (accessible at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-09/toyota-autonomous-vehicle-startup-aurora-enter-self-driving-cars-partnership); Zachary Shahan, ‘Mobileye’s Partnerships With BMW, Ford, NIO, Nissan, Volkswagen, & WILLER’, CleanTechnica, 10 August 2020 (accessible at https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/10/mobileyes-partnerships-with-bmw-ford-nio-nissan-volkswagen-willer); Steven Merkt, ‘Supplier-OEM Partnerships Are Accelerating EV Innovation’, TE Connectivity (accessible at https://www.te.com/usa-en/about-te/perspectives-on-technology/supplier-oem-partnerships-electric-vehicle-innovation.html).
^[33] See Gammon Construction and Guildhawk’s commercial collaboration reported in ‘Joint venture to create smart cities of the future’, PBC Today, 29 June 2021 (accessible at https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/digital-construction/smart-cities/built-environment-smart-cities/95341/); Oriental Pearl and China Electronics Technology Group’s commercial collaboration reported in ‘Joint venture to boost smart city development, Shine, 27 August 2020 (accessible at https://www.shine.cn/biz/economy/2008275015/).
^[34] See Global Data, ‘Global IoT market will surpass the $1 trillion mark by 2024, says GlobalData’, 2 June 2021 (accessible at https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet-of-things/global-iot-market-to-surpass-1-trillion-mark-by-2024-globaldata/83194328?redirect=1).
^[35] See Jack Ballantyne, ‘Nigerian oil trader seeks injunction against Ivorian state entity’, Global Arbitration Review, 27 August 2021 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/nigerian-oil-trader-seeks-injunction-against-ivorian-state-entity).
^[36] A typical issue is compliance with data protection and privacy regulations, also in relation to international data transfers. In this respect, the level of compliance required under the applicable laws is, to some extent, subject to interpretation.
^[37] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act) dated 23 February 2022, COM(2022) 68 final.
^[38] For instance in the arbitration (1) MedImpact International LLC; (2) MedImpact International HK Limited v (1) Dimensions Healthcare LLC; (2) MedImpact Arabia Limited, DIFC-LCIA Case No. DL18141, para 18 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-1-medimpact-international-llc-and-medimpact-international-hk-limited-1-v-dimensions-healthcare-llc-and-2-medimpact-arabia-limited-final-award-wednesday-24th-july-2019#decision_14685), the claimants’ allegations included inter alia that (1) the respondents had sold IT services and software in the territory other than through the JV, which therefore interfered with the business of the JV; and (2) the respondents had breached contractual provisions surrounding the use of licensed IT and confidential information under the JV agreement and misappropriated IP rights.
^[39] See CIETAC caseload statistics for 2014 to 2016 where JV disputes take up only around 1-8 per cent of its annual caseload (accessible at www.cietac-eu.org); Stockholm Chamber of Commerce caseload statistics for 2017 to 2019 where JV disputes take up around 5 per cent of its annual caseload (accessible at https://sccinstitute.com/statistics/statistics-2008-2020/).
^[40] In the publicly reported examples that we came across, some examples involved a termination of the collaboration. See Artilium Africam LLC and Tristar Africa Telecon, LLC v Artilium Group Limited, Green Globe Services, LLC and Parateum Corporation, ICDR Case No. 01-19-0003-1680 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-artilium-africa-llc-et-al-v-artilium-plc-et-al-final-award-tuesday-8th-february-2022#decision_21716); (1) MedImpact International LLC; (2) MedImpact International HK Limited v (1) Dimensions Healthcare LLC; (2) MedImpact Arabia Limited, DIFC-LCIA Case No. DL18141 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-1-medimpact-international-llc-and-medimpact-international-hk-limited-1-v-dimensions-healthcare-llc-and-2-medimpact-arabia-limited-final-award-wednesday-24th-july-2019#decision_14685). See also the HKIAC arbitration between Proton Holdings and Goldstar Heavy Industrial reported by Cosmo Sanderson, ‘Malaysian carmaker declares win in dispute over Chinese venture’, Global Arbitration Review, 9 March 2022 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/toys-r-us-in-battle-over-asian-joint-venture).
^[41] Bruce Shneier, ‘We must bridge the gap between technology and policymaking. Our future depends on it’, World Economic Forum, 12 November 2019 (accessible at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/we-must-bridge-the-gap-between-technology-and-policy-our-future-depends-on-it).
^[42] Sean Keane, ‘Trump reiterates Huawei as ‘national security threat’, CNET, 19 August 2019 (accessible at https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/trump-says-he-doesnt-want-to-do-business-with-huawei-due-to-national-security-threat); Annabel Murphy, Jack Parrock, ‘Huawei 5G: European countries playing ‘politics’ with network bans, Chinese company says’, Euronews, 28 July 2021 (accessible at https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/28/huawei-eyes-a-place-within-europe-s-digital-future-despite-5g-bans-in-some-countries).
^[43] Aaron Gregg, ‘FCC commissioner calls on Google and Apple to ban TikTok app’, The Washington Post, 29 June 2022 (accessible at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/06/29/fcc-tiktok-ban-apple-google).
^[44] Pjotr Sauer, ‘Russia bans Facebook and Instagram under ‘extremism’ law’, The Guardian, 21 March 2022 (accessible at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/russia-bans-facebook-and-instagram-under-extremism-law).
^[45] Nivell Rayda, ‘CNA Explains: What do Indonesia’s new licensing rules mean for tech companies?’, 27 July 2022 (accessible at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/indonesia-tech-companies-licensing-regulation-facebook-google-twitter-2838886); Digital Rights Monitor, ‘Social Media Companies instructed to establish local presence, provide government with unencrypted user data and block access to reported content within 24 hours’, 12 February 2020 (accessible at https://digitalrightsmonitor.pk/social-media-companies-instructed-to-establish-local-presence-provide-government-with-unencrypted-user-data-and-block-access-to-reported-content-within-24-hours).
^[46] Lauren Feiner, ‘Uber to end service in Colombia after regulatory crackdown’, CNBC, 10 January 2020 (accessible at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/uber-to-end-service-in-colombia-after-regulatory-crackdown.html).
^[47] Lluis Paradell, Santiago Gatica, ‘ISDS landscape in Latin America for 2022’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 19 April 2022 (accessible at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/04/19/isds-landscape-in-latin-america-for-2022/).
^[48] Lisa Bohmer, ‘China’s Huawei lodges ICSID arbitration against Sweden over 5G ban’, IA Reporter, 24 January 2022 (accessible at https://www.iareporter.com/articles/chinas-huawei-lodges-icsid-arbitration-against-sweden-over-5g-ban/).
^[49] Lisa Bohmer and Luke Peterson, ‘Uber threatens Colombia with treaty-based arbitration after ban on use of its ride-sharing app’, IA Reporter, 9 January 2020 (accessible at https://www.iareporter.com/articles/uber-threatens-colombia-with-treaty-based-arbitration-after-ban-on-use-of-its-ride-sharing-app/).
^[50] Jack Ballantyne, ‘Chinese-Saudi telecoms dispute kicks off at ICSID’, Global Arbitration Review, 27 July 2022 (accessible at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/chinese-saudi-telecoms-dispute-kicks-icsid).
^[51] Kevin Pinner, ‘Co. Hit By $100M Papua New Guinea Tax Seeks Arbitration’, Law360, 7 July 2022.
^[52] L1bero Partners LP and Mr. Fabio M. Covarrubias Piffer v United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Notice of Intent, 30 December 2020 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/other/en-l1bero-partners-lp-and-mr-fabio-m-covarrubias-piffer-v-united-mexican-states-notice-of-intent-wednesday-30th-december-2020).
^[53] Neustar, Inc. v Republic of Colombia (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/7), Notice of Intent, 13 September 2019 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/other/en-neustar-inc-v-republic-of-colombia-notice-of-intent-friday-13th-september-2019); Lisa Bohmer, ‘US-based operator of .co internet domain threatens to initiate ICSID arbitration against Colombia’, IA Reporter, 30 September 2019 (accessible at https://www.iareporter.com/articles/us-based-operator-of-co-internet-domain-threatens-to-initiate-icsid-arbitration-against-colombia).
^[54] Article 1(a), Netherlands Model Investment Agreement (2019); Article 1(d)-(e), German Model BIT (2008); Article 1(1)(f), South Korea-Cameroon BIT (2013); Article 1(1)(iv), India-United Arab Emirates BIT (2013); Article 8.1(g) of the 2016 EU-CETA also expressly protects IP rights.
^[55] Article 1(1), Turkey-China BIT (2015); Article 1(1), Switzerland-China BIT (2009).
^[56] Kiran Bhageshpur, ‘Data Is The New Oil – And That’s A Good Thing’, Forbes Technology Council, 15 November 2019 (accessible at https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/11/15/data-is-the-new-oil-and-thats-a-good-thing/?sh=bece28173045).
^[57] UNCTAD, ‘IIA Issues Note – Recent Developments in the International Investment Regime – Issue 1’, May 2018, p 2 (accessible at https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcbinf2018d1_en.pdf).
^[58] Matthias Hofer, Lutz Riede Tobias Timmann, ‘IP Trends in 2022 – AI and IP: A quick guide – Part I’, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, 21 April 2022 (accessible at https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102hn1x/ip-trends-in-2022-ai-and-ip-a-quick-guide-part-i).
^[59] UK Law Commission, ‘Digital Assets: Consultation Paper’, 28 July 2022, para 5.10 (accessible at https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2022/07/Digital-Assets-Consultation-Paper-Law-Commission-1.pdf). The Law Commission has proposed to recognise a third category of personal property known as ‘data objects’ which would: (1) compose of data represented in an electronic medium, including in the form of computer code, electronic, digital or analogue signals; (2) exist independently of persons and legal systems; and (3) be rivalrous.
^[60] European Commission, ‘Free flow of non-personal data’, Policies (accessible at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/non-personal-data).
European Commission, ‘Data Act: Commission proposes measures for a fair and innovative data economy’, Press Release, 23 February 2022 (accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1113).
^[61] See Introduction and footnote 5 for the recent EU regulations affecting tech companies.
^[62] Peter Chrocziel, Boris Kasolowsky and Robert Whitener, International Arbitration of Intellectual Property Disputes: A Practitioner’s Guide, CH Beck Hart Nomos (2017), para 74.
^[63] UNCTAD Study, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: Trends in Investment Rulemaking’, 31 January 2017, pp 47-52 (accessible at https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/iteiia20065_en.pdf).
^[64] Christopher F. Duggan, Don Wallace, Jr., Noah D. Rubins, Borzu Sabahi, ‘Expropriation’, Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008), p 451.
^[65] The cases of CME v Czech Republic and Lauder v Czech Republic involved parallel claims alleging the state’s expropriation of the investor’s exclusive broadcasting licence. Notwithstanding that there was no direct taking, CME succeeded in showing that there was indirect expropriation because the state’s alteration of the exclusive licence made it impossible to continue its broadcasting operations. A different conclusion was reached in Lauder v Czech Republic however on the issue of indirect expropriation among others. See Lisa Bohmer, ‘Looking Back (2 of 3): On the Merits: Two Different UNCITRAL Tribunals Reached Opposite Results in Dispute over Czech Media Investment’, IA Reporter, 10 April 2019 (accessible at https://www.iareporter.com/articles/looking-back-2-of-3-on-the-merits-two-different-uncitral-tribunals-reached-opposite-results-in-dispute-over-czech-media-investment/). See also Christopher F. Duggan, Don Wallace, Jr., Noah D. Rubins, Borzu Sabahi, ‘Expropriation’, Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp 457-461 noting the debate and variations in awards adopting the two different standards of substantial or complete deprivation of rights.
^[66] See the US’ call for a ban on TikTok and Russia’s ban on social media companies previously mentioned above.
^[67] See Indonesia’s and Pakistan’s data sharing requirements previously mentioned above.
^[68] See footnote 65. See also Christopher F. Duggan, Don Wallace, Jr., Noah D. Rubins, Borzu Sabahi, ‘Expropriation’, Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp 457-461 noting the debate and variations in awards adopting the two different standards of substantial or complete deprivation of rights in finding an expropriation.
^[69] At the time of writing, there are currently two cases challenging the ban on the use of a tech company’s software application, which are Espíritu Santo Holdings, LP and L1bre Holding, LLC v United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/13) which is brought under NAFTA and Uber Technologies Inc and Uber Colombia S.A.S v Colombia. In the first case, the claimants do not appear to have argued that their ‘investment’ relates to the IP rights and other intangible property rights protected under NAFTA. Instead, the claimants argue that their ‘investment’ is the shares in the local company and concession agreement granted by the state. See the claimant’s notice of intent for Espíritu Santo Holdings, LP and L1bre Holding, LLC v United Mexican States, 30 May 2019 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/other/en-espiritu-santo-holdings-lp-v-united-mexican-states-notice-of-intent-thursday-30th-may-2019). In the second case, we refer to the notice of dispute which refers to Uber’s protected investments as including IP rights over the Uber Platform and applications. See Uber’s notice of dispute under the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, 30 December 2019 (accessible at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11118.pdf).
^[70] These are the cases involving Huawei, Uber, Neustar and L1bero Partners. The remaining cases involving PCCW and Digicel could not be verified because their notices of intent or requests for arbitration have not been publicised.
^[71] Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v the Kingdom of Sweden, Request for Arbitration, 7 January 2022 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/other/en-huawei-technologies-co-ltd-v-kingdom-of-sweden-request-for-arbitration-friday-7th-january-2022); Neustar Inc and Co Internet SAS v The Republic of Colombia, Request for Arbitration, 23 December 2019 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/other/en-neustar-inc-v-republic-of-colombia-request-for-arbitration-monday-23rd-december-2019).
^[72] Espíritu Santo Holdings, LP and L1bre Holding, LLC v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/13, Claimants’ Notice of Intent, 30 May 2019 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/other/en-espiritu-santo-holdings-lp-v-united-mexican-states-notice-of-intent-thursday-30th-may-2019).
^[73] Espíritu Santo Holdings, LP and L1bre Holding, LLC v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/13, Claimants’ Notice of Intent, 30 May 2019 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/other/en-espiritu-santo-holdings-lp-v-united-mexican-states-notice-of-intent-thursday-30th-may-2019).
^[74] See Uber’s Notice of Dispute under the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, 30 December 2019 (accessible at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11118.pdf).
^[75] Daniel Malan, ‘The law can’t keep up with new tech. Here’s how to close the gap’, World Economic Forum, 21 June 2018 (accessible at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/law-too-slow-for-new-tech-how-keep-up/).
^[76] Prabhash Ranjan, Harsha Vardhana Singh, Kevin James and Ramandeep Singh, ‘India’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty: Is India Too Risk Averse?’, Brookings India Impact Series, August 2018, pp 24-25. The 2016 India Model BIT does not contain a specific fair and equitable treatment clause, and instead refers to the protection for the treatment of investments under customary international law.
^[77] Matthew C. Porterfield, ‘A Distinction Without a Difference? The Interpretation of Fair and Equitable Treatment under Customary International Law by Investment Tribunals’, International Institute for Sustainable Development Investment Treaty News, 22 March 2013 (accessible at https://www.iisd.org/itn/en/2013/03/22/a-distinction-without-a-difference-the-interpretation-of-fair-and-equitable-treatment-under-customary-international-law-by-investment-tribunals/#_ftn2); Chapter 11, Article 6(2)(c) of the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, 27 February 2009 (accessible at https://aanzfta.asean.org/uploads/2016/09/AANZFTA-legal-text-PRINTED-Signed.pdf); NAFTA Free Trade Commission, North American Free Trade Agreement Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions, 31 July 2001 (accessible at http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd/nafta/commission/ch11understanding_e.asp).
^[78] Christopher F. Duggan, Don Wallace, Jr., Noah D. Rubins, Borzu Sabahi, ‘Full Protection and Security’, Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp 533-535; Rudolf Dolzer and Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), p 149.
^[79] Saluka Investments BV v The Czech Republic (PCA Case No. 2001-04), Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para 484 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-saluka-investments-bv-v-the-czech-republic-partial-award-friday-17th-march-2006).
^[80] Christopher F. Duggan, Don Wallace, Jr., Noah D. Rubins, Borzu Sabahi, ‘Full Protection and Security’, Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 538; CME v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award, 13 September 2001, para 613 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-cme-czech-republic-b-v-v-the-czech-republic-partial-award-thursday-13th-september-2001); Azurix Corp v The Argentine Republic (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Award, 14 July 2006, para 408 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-azurix-corp-v-the-argentine-republic-i-award-friday-14th-july-2006); Siemens A.G. v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8), Award, 6 February 2007, para 303 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-siemens-a-g-v-the-argentine-republic-award-wednesday-17th-january-2007).
^[81] See for instance Siemens A.G. v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8), Award, 6 February 2007, para 303. The Tribunal also based its reasoning on the qualification of the term ‘security’ as ‘legal security’ under the treaty.
^[82] Compañiá de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award, 20 August 2007, paras 7.4.15-7.4.17 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-compania-de-aguas-del-aconquija-s-a-and-vivendi-universal-s-a-formerly-compania-de-aguas-del-aconquija-s-a-and-compagnie-generale-des-eaux-v-argentine-republic-i-award-ii-monday-20th-august-2007); Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22), Award, 24 July 2008, para 729 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-biwater-gauff-tanzania-limited-v-united-republic-of-tanzania-award-thursday-24th-july-2008).
^[83] Jerry Dunleavy, ‘‘Blended Threat’: DOJ warns of China, Russia, and North Korea allying with hackers, Justice Department’, The Washington Examiner, 19 February 2022 (accessible at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/justice/doj-warns-china-russia-north-korea-criminal-hackers-blended-threat).
^[84] David Collins, ‘Applying the Full Protection and Security Standard of International Investment Law to Digital Assets’, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, 2011, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 225-243.
^[85] David Collins, ‘Applying the Full Protection and Security Standard of International Investment Law to Digital Assets’, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, 2011, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 236-237.
^[86] David Collins, ‘Applying the Full Protection and Security Standard of International Investment Law to Digital Assets’, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, 2011, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 239-240.
^[87] Christopher F. Duggan, Don Wallace, Jr., Noah D. Rubins, Borzu Sabahi, ‘Full Protection and Security’, Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008), p 567; Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Poland v Germany), PCIJ Series A. No 17, Judgement, 13 September 1928, p 47.
^[88] Christopher F. Duggan, Don Wallace, Jr., Noah D. Rubins, Borzu Sabahi, ‘Damages, Compensation and Non-Pecuniary Remedies’, Investor-State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp 567-572.
^[89] See for instance in Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4, Decision on Liability and on Principles of Quantum, 22 May 2012, paras 437-439 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-mobil-investments-canada-inc-and-murphy-oil-corporation-v-government-of-canada-i-decision-on-liability-and-principles-of-quantum-tuesday-22nd-may-2012); Gemplus S.A., SLP, S.A., and Gemplus Industrial, S.A. de C.V. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3 & ARB(AF)/04/4, Award, 16 June 2010, para 49 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-gemplus-s-a-slp-s-a-and-gemplus-industrial-s-a-de-c-v-v-united-mexican-states-award-wednesday-16th-june-2010); SoIEs Badajoz GmbH v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/38, Award, 31 July 2019, para 478 (accessible at https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-soles-badajoz-gmbh-v-kingdom-of-spain-none-currently-available-monday-24th-august-2015#decision_4127).
Author | Partner
Author | Counsel
Author | Principal Associate
Author | Associate
Eric Leikin, Lutz Riede, Matthias Hofer and Sue Ng
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Bruno Campana and Denis Desbiez
FTI Consulting
Jostein Kristensen, Mateusz Slomka and Sahar Shamsi
Oxera Consulting LLP
Maria Fogdestam Agius
Westerberg & Partners Advokatbyrå AB
Meloria Meschi and Ravi Kanabar
FTI Consulting
Hafsa Zayyan
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
Arnaud Nuyts and Gabriele Ruscalla
Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck Kirkpatrick
Jussi Lehtinen and Helen Lehto
Dittmar & Indrenius
Fredrik Lundblom and Sebastian Berglind
Vinge
Get more from GAR
Sign up to our daily email alert
Sign up

Unlock unlimited access to all Global Arbitration Review content

source

The Best CAD Software of 2022 (All Levels)  All3DP
source

October 11, 2022, 12:15 PM   0
Share
“IP teams often embark on the IPMS journey with great optimism. Once in the thick of implementation, however, they may experience a turbulent journey.”
Success is not delivering a feature; success is learning how to solve the customer’s problem.
~ Eric Ries
Imagine that your family has decided to build a new home. You’ve got the vision, but you need to call in the pros—a well-established, highly expert homebuilder with a cadre of architects, designers, contractors, and tradespeople.
You’re relying upon the builder’s expertise to thoughtfully scope the project and prepare you for what lies ahead. This includes (a) helping you understand what financial and other commitments will be required of you; (b) educating you on challenges you’ll face along the way; and (c) highlighting available offerings that align with your vision.
You’re impressed by what the builder’s sales team promises to deliver, so you sign a contract. The price tag is substantial, but you feel you owe it to your family’s future well-being to move forward.
The sales team hands off the project to the builder’s design and construction teams. It’s then that a sobering reality begins to settle in, marked by a litany of unfulfilled promises, delays, surprises, cost overruns, uneven performance, and unresponsiveness.
The only way to salvage the project is for your family to make up the difference, all at incredible sacrifice to daily life. You essentially take a leadership role in the project, do many tasks you thought you’d contracted for, and chip in more money to get the work done. You also give up on the builder fulfilling all contract items.
Now imagine that your company or law firm has decided to implement intellectual property management software (IPMS) with a vendor.
In a worst-case implementation scenario, you may feel like you’re reliving the above homebuilding saga.
Indeed, IP teams often embark on the IPMS journey with great optimism. Once in the thick of implementation, however, they may experience a turbulent journey.
Armed with knowledge of what can go wrong, your enterprise can take proactive steps to drive stronger vendor performance and successfully leverage the power of your chosen IPMS.
Well known to IP professionals, IP management software provides functionality related to IP assets (e.g., patents and trademarks), disputes, operations, and/or tasks. Other descriptors for such software include IP management system, IP asset management system or software, IP portfolio management software or solution, IP lifecycle management software or solution, and IP docketing system.
IPMS vendors, providers, or developers abound in the IP software and services industry.
In its most basic sense, an IPMS is a database of IP records of an enterprise (e.g., a corporation) or multiple enterprises (e.g., multiple clients of a law firm or multiple business units of a group of corporate affiliates). Besides storage of IP asset data, an IPMS may provide docketing functions to enable the tracking of legal and organizational deadlines and related tasks.
IPMS software has come a long way from its docketing-centered roots. Similar to other enterprise teams such as finance, product management, engineering, marketing, and sales, IP teams are increasingly seeking workflow tools that (a) reduce time-consuming administrative tasks; (b) enable more collaboration within the IP team, with other stakeholders in the enterprise, and with external parties; and (c) help their operations to become data-driven.
The IP software and services industry has taken note. Many IPMSs now provide functionality related to portfolio management, invention disclosure submission, workflows to automate or semi-automate actions, document management, patent annuities, trademark renewals, analytics, invoice submission and processing, and the like. Vendors also are starting to introduce new connectivity (e.g., to cloud services) and modern interfaces to support more optimized workflows, digital transformation, and intelligent automation.
Your company’s or law firm’s decision to buy, implement, and use an IPMS may be quite consequential. Implementation and subscription costs may be high. You may need to commit substantial time and other non-monetary resources to support implementation and ongoing productive use.
No two IPMSs and no two enterprises are the same, resulting in significant variability among implementations and implementation projects.
For example, an enterprise using one IPMS may opt to switch to a new, different IPMS. The new IPMS vendor must migrate data from the current system to the new system.
When an enterprise doesn’t have an existing IPMS, datasets must be created from scratch or aggregated from multiple disparate sources. In one such scenario, a corporation’s IP asset data historically has exclusively resided in respective docket systems of its outside patent or trademark counsel. Now, the corporation wishes to implement its own IPMS to provide a full view (e.g., “shadow docket”) of its IP portfolio, or perhaps to begin insourcing IP work.
Another paradigm involves a corporation comprising multiple distinct business units, divisions, or other subgroups that apply different processes, procedures, and ways of viewing their associated IP. The corporation has decided to implement a singular IPMS that permits customization by business units or standardization of operational practices across such units.
An enterprise’s IPMS journey generally fits within four stages:
Some IPMS implementations may be relatively compact and straightforward. An enterprise may have a small portfolio of IP assets; it may have an existing IPMS containing clean data that merely needs to be migrated to another IPMS; or it only requires an entry-level IPMS for basic docketing functions.
Other IPMS implementations may be complex or extremely complex. In particular:
The list of complexities goes on.
What can go wrong during implementation? Potentially many things. Enterprises may experience turbulence such as:
1. Lackluster project leadership and execution
An enterprise may discover that its vendor approaches implementation principally as an exercise to migrate data and provision IPMS features, rather than as a project to deliver solutions closely aligned with the enterprise’s vision and needs.
For instance, the vendor makes no meaningful attempt to ascertain the enterprise’s current organizational, competitive, and IP ecosystem; its imagined future state; or other pertinent fundamentals. The vendor says things to the effect of, “Our software does this,” versus “What are your pain points?”, “What do you want to accomplish?”, and “This is how we can help you get there.” It seems to lack the desire or capacity to truly lead the project; passion for innovation and high service delivery are in short supply.
As a result, the enterprise expends significant energies just trying to be heard by the vendor. It feels that it must take the lead to compensate for the vendor’s lack of direction.
In addition to demonstrating poor leadership, a vendor may struggle mightily with execution of its implementation plan. A project team that acts passively, reactively, or incompetently is undesirable in any IPMS context. However, in particularly complex implementations, the enterprise’s troubles will be substantially compounded by the vendor’s shaky performance.
2. A Pandora’s box of unwelcome surprises
Surprises can arise in every implementation. In an implementation gone south, an enterprise may confront numerous surprises that seemingly could have been avoided but for the vendor’s action or inaction. Examples include:
3. Revisionist storytelling
As implementation problems arise, go-live seems ever distant, and it’s unable to collect subscription fees, a vendor may take strained positions in hopes of bringing money in the door.
For example, contrary to a negotiated contract and the clear understanding of the parties, a vendor suddenly asserts that it’s owed subscription fees despite not having completed the implementation stage and delivered the IPMS for the enterprise’s use. The enterprise is asked to accept the notion that go-live means to provide a test environment or perform implementation tasks.
4. Poor relationship management
The implementation stage may reveal flagrant weaknesses in how the vendor approaches its customer relationships. The vendor may consistently stumble in such foundational areas as managing expectations, fostering healthy communications, and resolving major and minor problems. These deficiencies erode the enterprise’s trust and hamper the parties’ ability to navigate the turbulence of implementation.
5. Massive allocation of enterprise resources
An implementation may require significantly more commitment from the enterprise than the vendor stated would be reasonably required. Internal stakeholders, including IP team or practice group members, must dedicate precious additional time, effort, and money to support the implementation and bring it to fruition.
Many of the above scenarios stem from the vendor. Simply put, it overpromised and undelivered. Others may be unavoidable, a byproduct of complexity or other realities that the parties did or could not anticipate despite their best intentions.
Whatever the cause, a troubled IPMS implementation brings dangers to the enterprise beyond delays and extra costs.
The enormous time devoted to the project takes team members away from other activities and disrupts ongoing work. Added costs and prolonged project completion may undermine the credibility of enterprise leaders who championed adoption of the IPMS. Team morale may suffer.
Moreover, a plagued implementation may sabotage a team’s efforts to deliver visionary, disruptive changes to the enterprise.
To avoid these dangers, companies and law firms should take proactive steps to ensure as successful an IPMS implementation as possible, which we will explore in Part II of this series.
 
Share
Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.
No comments yet. Add my comment.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Δdocument.getElementById( “ak_js_1” ).setAttribute( “value”, ( new Date() ).getTime() );
November 19, 2022
November 18, 2022
November 18, 2022
November 17, 2022
November 17, 2022
November 17, 2022
At IPWatchdog.com our focus is on the business, policy and substance of patents and other forms of intellectual property. Today IPWatchdog is recognized as the leading sources for news and information in the patent and innovation industries.
© 1999 – 2022 IPWatchdog, Inc.
Images on IPWatchdog Primarily Provided by
Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close

source

A common complaint among in-house legal teams is getting sales teams to provide the right information during the intake process. When creating new contracts for new or existing customers, there is a direct relationship between sales and legal teams. And it continues from intake through deal management – involving everything from contract creation to review to execution to renewal.
Although sales teams are generally tasked with starting the contract generation process, they aren’t necessarily good at intake. It’s tedious, boring and can get in the way of closing the deal and earning a commission. To further complicate matters for a sales representative, there are often subtleties that have been pre-negotiated that may seem totally innocuous to sales, but are legally significant. These facts may be left out all together on an intake request.
To reduce the work required to create new, accurate contracts, some lawyers create customized templates to capture all the information they need. But those ad-hoc solutions often fail as incorrect data gets inputted, the whole process is ignored, or the template is hastily completed.
One example of a common roadblock can be highlighted by examining the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) drafting and signing process, often required for business to move forward. The first question to address is whether an NDA exists with any given customer. If so, where is it? If none exists, what will it take to get one created and signed? People spend too much time hunting down the NDA with a flurry of back-and-forth e-mails. Wouldn’t it be nice if this standard document was included in the process and easy to access from the beginning?
Intake challenges also include the input of incorrect information – everything from the use of outdated templates to unreviewed legal language or repetitive or obviously unnecessary errors or omissions. These issues simply frustrate the lawyers who are tasked with ensuring each contract brings with it minimal exposure to risk for the business.
In most sales circumstances, both sides will have a champion –a sales rep on one side, a buyer champion (sometimes called Sales Point of Contact, or SPOC), on the other. Both sides will work with their own legal representatives, who will offer comments and red lines. It’s not unusual for this process to happen again and again, wasting everyone’s time and resources. It’s the sales rep’s responsibility to manage the process – even though most don’t enjoy doing this and aren’t particularly good at it. Often, to move the process along, both sides will engage their own legal representatives in a phone or video conversation, an expensive and time-consuming exercise that often dissolves into a barrage of e-mails that can introduce errors into the whole process.
Each one of these cycles can be its own “mini-intake,” and can be subject to all of the above problems and frustrations that come with it.
One solution is to enlist the help of deal desk software – preferably one that is driven by artificial intelligence (AI) so it can continue to learn from all the changes and significantly improve the process. For example, Advocat offers a platform that enables collaborative redlining by centralizing all activity so that it’s easy to access and use.
Using software offers simple solutions to these problems that come up during the intake and deal management process. Here are some things the software can do, leading to significant returns on investment for companies that employ this evolving technology.
How deal desk software can help
Coordination: A virtual deal desk solution allows everyone to see the same information at the same time, avoiding cumbersome and time-consuming communication chains. This allows for a single source on negotiated documents, eliminating the many different versions of Word documents that users attach to emails and circulate around, getting messy and out of sync.
Overcoming issues: Deal desk software provides tools that make it easy for the legal team to show what they have done so it’s easier to approve changes.
Empowerment: A virtual deal desk empowers everyone involved to leverage all features embedded in the software, allowing all employees to use the tools to quickly move deals forward.
Essentially, intake problems are a symptom of bad incentives, confusion, and dis-empowerment. Adopting deal desk software can solve these problems by increasing communication, reducing confusion and overcoming disempowerment. When adopted correctly, deal desks can not only reduce frustration among and between the sales and legal teams, it can save the company time, money, and increase revenues by allowing deals to close quicker.
This is a collaborative effort, requiring support from all stakeholders involved.
Here are some examples:
Highlighting areas of confusion when redlining documents reduces the number of areas that don’t matter and allows resolution without escalation. This also points directly to things that actually DO matter and require escalation. AI can tell the difference, allowing the legal team to focus on what is truly important.
AI can unify the sales playbook with guardrails set up by the legal department. Frequently, everyone has a different view on what the ideal contract result should be. By aligning those views early in the process – and allowing the software to help – internal processes will be improved.
Deal desks allow shared and transparent timelines. The sales team may want to close a deal before the end of the quarter or around a buyer’s budget cycle. But the legal department may have a three-month backlog of work, frustrating the sales team, which may covertly try to avoid the legal process and create contracts on their own. It’s imperative for both sides to understand each other’s timeline to avoid conflict or risky actions such as the execution of non-vetted contracts.
Deal desk software empowers employees on all sides of the deal to quickly and easily solve problems by putting everyone in the same virtual room – both synchronously and asynchronously – to manage their time in an efficient way.
If you’re on the sales side, don’t let intake and deal management challenges get in the way of closing your next deal. If you’re on the legal side, be confident your sales team is working in the most efficient and legally prudent manner. Consider employing a virtual deal desk to improve your processes and bottom line.
See more »
Refine your interests »
Back to Top
Explore 2022 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © var today = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear();document.write(yyyy + ” “); JD Supra, LLC

source

A Statement of Work outlines the scope of work to be performed and identifies the objectives, tasks, and schedule. Here’s what you need to know.
Statement of Work (SOW) documents are extremely detailed and binding contracts that specify all the details of a project, including hierarchies of reporting, timelines, budgets, deliverables, dependencies, resources, and other terms and conditions agreed upon by all stakeholders. It is a complete project plan that lays down the groundwork for the working process of the project from start to finish.
An SOW document is imperative in order to begin work on any project for effective project management. It is a clearly written project management plan detailing the minutest aspects of the project to bring all the stakeholders on the same page.
Managing a project begins with a well-constructed SOW document. A comprehensive SOW agreement defines each and every aspect of the project in clear terms to all parties involved. It describes the scope of work, including daily tasks, due dates, the governance process, quality assurance, and deliverables, along with the suitable facilities, resources, equipment, training, and budget required to make the project feasible.
A formal SOW document is especially helpful when working with external resources or outsourcing projects to vendors or third parties. It serves as a legally binding contract that comes into play in case of disputes arising due to failure to deliver, financial dues, discrepancies in the end product delivered, missed due dates, etc.
Scope of Work ensures that all stakeholders are on the same page regarding the deliverables of the project. It deals with a brief overview of the project, the list of tasks, a detailed description of services, members, or teams responsible for tasks and services, due dates, expected outcomes, and deliverables.
On the other hand, the Statement of Work encompasses the Scope of Work plus other aspects of project management like budget allocation, financing, resources, equipment provisioning, training, payment processing, performance management, and so on.
An SOW (Statement of Work) document is especially helpful when managing projects in software development as it regulates the service agreements between two or more teams, between developers and vendors, or between IT firms collaborating on building a software product. Although it's not composed as a legal document, it can have legal repercussions when not adhered to.
A clearly written SOW template in software development project management includes explicit descriptions for the following crucial points:
Includes an introduction, a brief overview, and pointers on the reasons and objectives of the project, the processes involved, the end goal, and what it would take to get there.
Where will the vendors, contractors, managers, developers, and other stakeholders work from? Office, remote, or overseas locations?
This section describes the list of tasks, task due dates, responsible teams and members, reporting structure, and task outcomes.
Date of project commencement, task due dates, major milestones, and dates for project conclusion.
This section defines what is to be delivered, when, and how.
This section deals with quality testing, feedback loops, and other standard procedures to maintain the integrity of the deliverables.
A list of all the facilities, equipment, dependencies, technical know-how, tools for project management, and other resources like training, upskilling, etc., required to ensure the successful completion of the project.
This section deals with the budget allocated to the project, payment schedule, services and goods purchase, invoicing, and other financial aspects of the project.
Things not covered in the above eight sections, like travel expenditure, payment for short-term external services, security issues, confidentiality clauses, etc., are usually covered under separate headings dedicated to the topics.
This section deals with what constitutes the successful completion of the project. It mentions the standard of acceptable deliverables within the agreed-upon timeline, with the allocated budget, and every other aspect, so there's no confusion or communication gap between what's expected and what's delivered.
The closing section deals with the project completion procedures and lists all the paperwork, product releases, and other paraphernalia to conclude the partnership.
Here's a quick list of downloadable templates for different types of SOWs.
If you are in the business of developing and managing projects or building software products and services, you'll be in frequent need of clearly composed SOW documents. Although you can easily plan a project using tools like Dropbox Paper, it doesn't help you write a thorough SOW document. Instead of writing one from scratch for each project, you can rely on web-based portals that specialize in generating proposal documents, Scope of Work documents, and SOW agreements.
Better known as digital contracting apps, these portals provide everything from readymade software contracts and legal documents to tools to manage a project, negotiate the terms, customize documents per project requirements, and measure the progress of your software development project. Here's a shortlist of such digital apps to help you with your SOW agreements.
Whether you're a freelance software developer, a member of a team of developers, or a software firm that hires vendors, it's a given that you'll need to write or sign an SOW document sooner or later.
You can use the free downloadable templates listed above, or outsource this process to software services that make the process easier and also provide free Scope of Work templates.
Former corporate communications specialist who's worked with Uber, Google, and TCS, Al Kaatib has ten years of experience as a freelance writer specializing in B2B and B2C content.

source

source

An effective combination of workflow, team collaboration, and document management, Microsoft SharePoint Online is an easy pick for our Editors' Choice designation. But make sure you need all this power because its price can be significant.
Microsoft has had to fight harder in the past few years to maintain its leadership in the productivity space; something that Microsof Office platform used to manage almost effortlessly. To help set it apart, the company has developed several back-office enhancements for Office and made them available in the cloud. Chief among these is Microsoft SharePoint Online, a very powerful combination of customizable workflow, team collaboration, and document management. In combination with Microsoft Office and Office 365, SharePoint Online can quickly implement broad productivity improvements in many organizations. While it carries a potentially high price tag once all users and options are accounted for (though it starts at just $5 per user per month), it’s still an easy pick for our Editors’ Choice in document management, along with Ascensio System OnlyOffice.
Microsoft doesn’t offer a free trial of Microsoft SharePoint Online, though the 30-day trial for Microsoft Office 365 Enterprise E3 does include access to Microsoft SharePoint Online (make sure you sign up for the Enterprise E3 trial as Microsoft also offers trial versions of Office 365 Home Premium and Business Premium but neither of these tiers includes Microsoft SharePoint Online). Microsoft SharePoint Online has two paid plans, named simply “Plan 1” and “Plan 2.” Plan 1 (which begins at $5 per user per month) includes really everything you would expect from a document management platform: support for multiple document libraries, collaboration tools, sharing with internal or external users, content management, records management, and workflows. Plan 2 (which begins at $10 per user per month) adds a number of advanced features, including customizable search capabilities, e-discovery, and compliance tools such as auditing and in-place hold.
You can also gain access to Microsoft SharePoint Online through any of the Enterprise tiers in Microsoft Office 365. The Office 365 Enterprise E1 tier provides Microsoft SharePoint Online access equivalent to Plan 1 as well as access to Exchange Online with 50GB mailboxes, Microsoft Teams ($5.00 Per User Per Month, Billed Annually at Microsoft 365 for Business)(Opens in a new window) , and online versions of Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft PowerPoint, and Microsoft Word.
Office 365 Enterprise E3 adds desktop versions of Office 2016 (up to five installations per user) as well as mobile apps, unlimited Microsoft OneDrive ($5.00 Per User Per Month at Microsoft 365 for Business)(Opens in a new window) storage, and the addition of document management capabilities. Such capabilities include manual retention and deletion policies, manual document classifications, and eDiscovery (a suite of tools that lets you find documents related to litigation or information requests, and take appropriate action such as placing a hold on the documents or exporting the files). Office 365 Enterprise E5 adds to the eDiscovery toolset with analytics, automated document classification, and import through Advanced Data Governance. Pricing for Office 365 Enterprise tiers is calculated as a monthly rate per user with an annual commitment. Pricing begins at $8 per user per month for E1, $20 per user per month for E3, and $35 per user per month for E5.


It’s simple to sign up with Microsoft SharePoint Online. Just pick a plan and provide your name, email, phone number, company, and address. Then, create a user ID, password, and a unique URL (e.g., yourname.onmicrosoft.com). After that, verify that you’re not a robot by inputting a code that will be sent to you via a text or phone call. Finally, input your payment information and choose whether to pay monthly or annually. Payment information is not required if you opt for the free trial.
If it’s your first experience with Office 365, then you may encounter a bit of information overload when you first log in. If you have signed up for the free trial of Microsoft Office 365 Enterprise E3, then your dashboard will include over a dozen tiles linked to various Microsoft programs and features included in the Enterprise E3 tier. One of these tiles is Microsoft SharePoint Online. In addition, you can access the administrative aspects of Microsoft SharePoint Online under the Admin module by using the Admin Centers menu on the left-hand side.

Microsoft SharePoint Online lets users create individual sites as an organization and management entity. Each SharePoint site can have its own document library, notebooks, security, and design. In addition, sites can be organized as standalone sites or in a hierarchy through the use of subsites. When creating a site, you’re prompted to choose between a Team site or a Communication site. Team sites are the traditional SharePoint sites, intended for collaboration within an organization, particularly where a significant percentage of the users will be involved in document management. Communication sites are useful for scenarios in which an individual or small group is creating content to be consumed by a larger group of users; think of it as a cross between a document library and a blog. Both site options can be used to share documents and are highly customizable.
Team sites in Microsoft SharePoint Online are flexible, provided someone is willing to navigate the learning curve. A site’s document library, for example, can be configured with numerous metadata fields, which can be leveraged for a number of different functions. A document view can be customized to show specific fields for you to use to search and sort. A view can also be filtered to only display documents with matching metadata, which would let you create multiple views, each customized to show a specific set of documents.

Microsoft SharePoint Online document libraries can be synchronized with your computer or mobile device by using the Microsoft OneDrive client. Desktop users can simply click the Sync button within the document library to configure the connection (or download the software). New files can be added to the document library through drag-and-drop, copying files into a synced folder on your desktop, or by using various Office apps on desktop or mobile devices. One knock against Microsoft SharePoint Online for many years was due to the unpredictability of the OneDrive sync client. Microsoft has since released a new OneDrive client, which seems to do a much better job of keeping your files in sync.

At its core, Microsoft SharePoint Online is a document management platform. In addition to basic document management capabilities, such as file uploads and downloads, editing, and sharing, Microsoft SharePoint Online handles change tracking, too. Keeping a log of who made edits and letting you download previous editions of your document to review changes or return to a previous revision lends quite a bit of flexibility to Microsoft SharePoint Online. Users can also configure alerts on a document library to receive a notification when changes are made. Documents can be checked out to prevent issues with multiple people editing the same file, though co-authoring (multiple users editing the same file simultaneously) is also supported for modern Office docs, assuming all users are using Office 2010 or later.
Microsoft offers some fairly hefty security and compliance features in Office 365, many of which can be leveraged against Microsoft SharePoint Online. Most other business-grade document management suites, such as Ascensio System OnlyOffice (40.00 Per Year at ONLYOFFICE)(Opens in a new window) , offer basic security features such as permissions and audit tracking. Microsoft SharePoint Online supports these features as well but also includes features an order of magnitude above the competition. For starters, you can create policies that handle things such as document labels, data loss prevention, document retention, and supervisor access. Document labels are used to identify documents that may have sensitive data, such as credit cards, social security numbers, or customer data.

SharePoint offers tools to not only create and manage these labels, but to apply them to existing documents (or even emails if you’re using a full Office 365 suite) based on the contents of the document. Similar tools are available to prevent data loss, such as preventing documents that contain sensitive information from being shared outside your organization. Tools are also available for managing document retention, both for preventing users from permanently deleting documents and for enforcing archival or removal after a defined period of time. In many of these cases, Microsoft offers a predefined set of filters designed to facilitate compliance with regulations in various countries, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act(Opens in a new window) (HIPAA) and corresponding regulations. You can also configure policy application by using search terms. These policies can be applied across Microsoft SharePoint Online or to individual sites.
Audit logging can be used to track user-level activities or administrative changes. Once logging is enabled, you can search the audit log for specific actions, users, time windows, or search terms in order to focus your view. One feature that was mentioned previously, eDiscovery, is a comprehensive tool for locating documents related to a specific topic such as a legal action. By using eDiscovery, you can locate documents that are within the scope of a subpoena or other information request, protect relevant documents by placing a hold on them, or even export relevant files in order to comply with the request.
If these security features sound intimidating, then know that they are completely optional and won’t get in your way if you choose to ignore them. More standard security options, such as group- or user-based permissions, are also available. You also can configure how file sharing outside your organization works, such as sharing only to authenticated users, setting expiration periods for anonymous access, or using groups to manage who can share documents externally. You can also configure share links to provide read-only access to your documents.

Microsoft SharePoint has supported workflow creation for some time now and SharePoint Online is no exception. While most document management systems with a workflow module support basic document management tasks, such as review routing or signature requests, Microsoft SharePoint Online tightly integrates with Microsoft Flow, a tool for creating workflows between disparate platforms. By using Flow, you can send approval requests when documents are loaded to a library, integrate with Microsoft Forms to route information to the appropriate contact, or link a document library with a third-party cloud storage platform such as DropBox Business or Google Drive for Work. Microsoft offers over a hundred Flow templates, or you can roll your own.
Another area Microsoft is pushing as an integration point into their holistic information management platform is Microsoft PowerApps (7.00 Per User Per Month at PowerApps)(Opens in a new window) . The intent behind PowerApps is that users can very easily (in relative terms) create an app that can capture and store data in Microsoft SharePoint (even using Flow). These PowerApps can be listed in the Microsoft Store and used for either internal business processes or as customer-facing portals.
Speaking of apps, Microsoft’s long-standing relationship with developers means that the Microsoft SharePoint app catalog is chock-full of apps you can integrate into your Microsoft SharePoint sites. These apps come in both paid and free options but you should be aware that even the free apps come with a price. Microsoft SharePoint app permissions are much like you’d expect on your mobile device, and each app includes a list of things that the app will be able to do with your documents and data, so they should be handled with the appropriate care. Under the right circumstances, Microsoft SharePoint apps can add functionality such as enhanced notification capabilities, additional calendar options, integration into other services, and a host of other options.
Microsoft SharePoint’s reputation for being difficult to manage or even use is the result of its focus on features over usability. With Microsoft’s increased focus on making Office 365 and its various components accessible to part-time admins (particularly those thrust into the role out of necessity), Microsoft SharePoint Online is a revelation in terms of offering advanced features that appeal to enterprise customers without delivering a solution so complex it can’t be used by smaller IT shops. To be fair, there are still some intricacies of managing Microsoft SharePoint, including multiple locations for administrative settings. But most of the features are much more straightforward to configure than they’ve been in the past.
Microsoft’s Office 365 pricing is aggressive and Microsoft SharePoint Online can be had for a very reasonable $5 per user per month. But that’s still a far cry from the $1-per-user-per-month pricing you can get from competitor Ascensio System OnlyOffice, our other Editors’ Choice. Still, based on its new ease-of-use focus, the advanced collaboration and security features offered with Flow, eDiscovery, and the wide variety of configurable management policies, Microsoft SharePoint Online easily earns one of our Editors’ Choice awards in the document management category.
An effective combination of workflow, team collaboration, and document management, Microsoft SharePoint Online is an easy pick for our Editors' Choice designation. But make sure you need all this power because its price can be significant.
Sign up for Lab Report to get the latest reviews and top product advice delivered right to your inbox.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.
Your subscription has been confirmed. Keep an eye on your inbox!
Advertisement
Tim Ferrill is an IT professional and writer living in Southern California. Follow him on Twitter @tferrill.
Read Tim’s full bio
Advertisement
PCMag.com is a leading authority on technology, delivering lab-based, independent reviews of the latest products and services. Our expert industry analysis and practical solutions help you make better buying decisions and get more from technology.
© 1996-2022 Ziff Davis. PCMag Digital Group
PCMag, PCMag.com and PC Magazine are among the federally registered trademarks of Ziff Davis and may not be used by third parties without explicit permission. The display of third-party trademarks and trade names on this site does not necessarily indicate any affiliation or the endorsement of PCMag. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product or service, we may be paid a fee by that merchant.

source

Content, analytics, functional, and utility APIs
FactSet and third-party concorded datasets
Integrated software solutions across front, middle and back office
Ebook: Solving the ESG Data Challenge
Join a team of highly motivated, talented individuals who are empowered to find answers through creative technology.
By FactSet Insight  |  November 10, 2022
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) has been a growing focus for Asset Managers over the past few years going quickly from Alternative data to Essential in the overall investment process. The continued appetite from investors and a changing regulatory landscape have all contributed to estimates that ESG will surpass $41 trillion in 2022 and $50 trillion by 2025.
(more…)

Software for Small Contractors  For Construction Pros
source

The Board Management Software Market Research | Sponsored | state-journal.com  State-Journal.com
source