### Arbitration Ordinance 《仲裁條例》

103E. Effect of award involving IPR
(1) This section applies if an award deciding an IPR dispute is made in arbitral proceedings.
(2) The fact that an entity is a third party licensee in respect of the IPR does not of itself make the entity a person claiming through or under a party to the arbitral proceedings for the purposes of section 73(1)(b).
(3) However, subsection (2) does not affect any right or liability between a third party licensee and a party to the arbitral proceedings whether—
(a) arising in contract; or
(b) arising by operation of law.
(4) In this section—

third party licensee (第三方特許持有人), in relation to an IPR in dispute in arbitral proceedings, means an entity that is—
(a) a licensee (whether or not an exclusive licensee) of the IPR under a licence granted by a party to the arbitral proceedings; but
(b) not a party to the arbitral proceedings.

103F. Recourse against award involving IPR
(1) For the purposes of section 81 (as it gives effect to Article 34(2)(b)(i) of the UNCITRAL Model Law), the subject-matter of a dispute is not incapable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Hong Kong only because the subject-matter relates to an IPR dispute.
(2) For the purposes of section 81 (as it gives effect to Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law), an award is not in conflict with the public policy of Hong Kong only because the subject-matter in respect of which the award is made relates to an IPR dispute.

103G. Recognition and enforcement of award involving IPR
(1) For the purposes of sections 86(2)(a), 89(3)(a), 95(3)(a) and 98D(3)(a), a matter is not incapable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Hong Kong only because the matter relates to an IPR dispute.
(2) For the purposes of sections 86(2)(b), 89(3)(b), 95(3)(b) and 98D(3)(b), it is not contrary to public policy of Hong Kong to enforce an award only because the award is in respect of a matter that relates to an IPR dispute.

### Arbitration Ordinance 《仲裁條例》

103H. Judgments entered in terms of award involving IPR
(1) This section applies if—
(a) an award (whether made in or outside Hong Kong) deciding an IPR dispute is made in arbitral proceedings; and
(b) a judgment in terms of the award is entered under section 84, 87, 92 or 98A.
(2) Section 73(1) applies in relation to the judgment as if a reference in that section to an award made by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement were a reference to the judgment.
(3) In this section—
award (裁決) includes a declaratory award.

103I. Validity of patent may be put in issue in arbitral proceedings
Section 101(2) of the Patents Ordinance (Cap. 514) does not prevent a party from putting the validity of a patent in issue in arbitral proceedings.

103J. Arbitral proceedings in relation to short-term patents
(1) A party to an arbitration agreement who is the proprietor of a short-term patent may commence arbitral proceedings to enforce any right conferred under the PO in relation to the patent, whether or not paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 129(1) of the PO has been satisfied.
(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if the parties to the arbitration agreement agree otherwise.
(3) If arbitral proceedings are commenced to enforce any right conferred under the PO in relation to a short-term patent, section 129(2) and (3) of the PO applies to the arbitral proceedings as if the proceedings were enforcement proceedings commenced under section 129(1) of the PO.
(4) However, if, before the commencement date* of this section, an arbitration has commenced to enforce any right conferred under the PO in relation to a short-term patent, section 129 of the PO, as in force immediately before that commencement date*, continues to apply to the arbitration and all of its related proceedings.
(5) In this section—
PO (《專利條例》) means the Patents Ordinance (Cap. 514);
related proceedings (相關程序), in relation to an arbitration, includes arbitral proceedings resumed after the setting aside of the award in the arbitration;
short-term patent (短期專利) has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the PO.

Editorial Note:
* Commencement date: 19 December 2019.

### Arbitration Ordinance 《仲裁條例》

104. Arbitral tribunal or mediator to be liable for certain acts and omissions
(1) An arbitral tribunal or mediator is liable in law for an act done or omitted to be done by—
(a) the tribunal or mediator; or
(b) an employee or agent of the tribunal or mediator,
in relation to the exercise or performance, or the purported exercise or performance, of the tribunal’s arbitral functions or the mediator’s functions only if it is proved that the act was done or omitted to be done dishonestly.
(2) An employee or agent of an arbitral tribunal or mediator is liable in law for an act done or omitted to be done by the employee or agent in relation to the exercise or performance, or the purported exercise or performance, of the tribunal’s arbitral functions or the mediator’s functions only if it is proved that the act was done or omitted to be done dishonestly.
(3) In this section, mediator (調解員) means a mediator appointed under section 32 or referred to in section 33.