Securities Law, Patent Dispute Resolution, and Corporate Risk Analysis

This case study delves into the complexities of patent dispute resolution, securities law, and risk management, focusing on a hypothetical case involving Bonner's vice president and potential insider trading. It examines the role of US courts and international regulatory agencies like WIPO in resolving patent disputes, contrasting their approaches. The case study highlights the liability of corporate insiders for failing to disclose stock purchases and the duty of companies like Bonner to ensure transparency. It further outlines a risk management procedure for Bonner, emphasizing compliance with laws, stakeholder opinions, and regular policy reviews to prevent similar incidents. References to relevant legal precedents and resources are included to support the analysis. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and past papers for students.

Securities and International Regulatory Agencies

Patent Dispute Resolution
In US Court:
 The patent law in US is derived from the patent clause provided in the
US Constitution.
 The decisions of the federal court plays an important role in the patent
law and litigation.
 The American Arbitration Association has recommended that arbitration
is one of the effective means of dispute resolution for patent
infringement.
 Parties of a patent dispute may ask for mediation before arbitration.
 Supplementary Rules for the Resolution of Patent Disputes and
Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures applies to a
patent dispute.

Patent Dispute Resolution
World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) dispute
resolution program
 This program offers a wide range of patent dispute resolution process
unlike the US Court.
 This range includes Mediation, Arbitration, expedited arbitration and
expert determination (Wipo.int. 2018).
 To avoid litigation, this processes have been introduced.
 WIPO has collaborated with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office to promote the use of option of dispute resolution.

Liability of Bonner's vice president
 Insider of a corporation is bound to disclose the facts about purchasing
of stocks to the members of the corporation under certain
circumstances.
 By reason of the special facts in this case, the Vice President of Bonner
was bound to announce that he purchased a new stock before the
announcement.
 As the announcement of the new tractor was yet to be made, the vice
president shall be liable for the breach of his fiduciary duties.
 he shall be liable for breach of his duty to act for the good faith in the
Securities Act of 1993.

Duty of Bonner to disclose stock purchase
 Bonner has a legal os well as ethical duty to disclose the stock purchase.
 Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 provides that the
fiduciary duty of the insider of a company shall be extended to the
individual shareholders.
 According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosure
should be made in certain cases before stock purchase.
 Bonner shall be liable for failing to disclose the stock purchase which
may affect the share price or the affairs of the corporation.
 Though not generally, but in this circumstances of the fact Bonner was
bound to disclose the stock purchase.
 This duty of Bonner belongs to all of its members and shareholders.

Risk management procedure for Bonner
With the help of a proper systematic and planned approach to treat risks
within the Corporation, Bonner can avoid this kind of situations (Oecd.org.
2018).
The risk management procedure involves:
 Identification of the issues of risks within the corporation,
 Compliance with all the laws by the members of the company
 Compliance with the opinion of other before making business decision.
 Timely review of the policy of Bonner to ensure that there is no repetition
of such incidents.
 The awareness of the liability for such incidents should be spread among
the members.

Risk management procedure for Bonner
 Risk management workshops at the various levels of Bonner.
 Liability of identification of risk should be explained to the members.
 Necessary disclosure to be made, in special facts of the case, to those
who may have interest in the affairs related to it.

References
 Oecd.org. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/risk-
management-corporate-governance.pdf
 Oliver v. Oliver (9o3), ix8 Ga. 362, 45 S. E. 232
 Public Law 97-247
 Tippecanoe Country v Reynolds(1873), 44 Ind. 509, 55 Am. Rep. 245
 Wipo.int. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/ipoffices/