The legal profession often finds its most profound insights stemming from the queries of clients unfamiliar with the intricacies of law. A poignant example of this occurred when a small textile manufacturer in Kerala inquired during the second hearing of his trademark litigation if it were possible to simply ask the opposing party to cease their actions. Far from being naïve, this question highlighted a significant gap in the system’s ability to provide straightforward resolutions. Despite having issued a cease-and-desist letter and awaiting an injunction, with the opposing party based in Delhi, the manufacturer had already incurred significant costs on legal counsel and travel, desiring only to resume his business operations without further complications.
This scenario is increasingly common, reflecting a growing frustration with the existing legal architecture which often presents clients with a stark choice between lengthy court proceedings or no resolution at all. This is where the Mediation Act, 2023, aims to make a transformative impact. While statutes alone cannot reshape culture, they can certainly lay a new groundwork. The Act, which received Presidential assent on September 15, 2023, and saw key provisions activated from October 9, 2023, seeks to integrate mediation more deeply into the legal process. Section 5 introduces structured pre-litigation mediation for civil and commercial disputes, while Section 27 ensures that mediated settlements hold the same enforceability as court decrees. Additionally, Section 30 officially recognizes online mediation, and Section 31 establishes the Mediation Council of India, operational as of March 2025.
For intellectual property (IP) practitioners, these changes are particularly significant. India’s court backlog, as reported in the India Justice Report 2025, exceeds 5.3 crore cases, with a notable 61% of High Court cases pending for over three years. IP disputes, often hinging on urgent commercial decisions, are disproportionately affected. A patent owner cannot afford to wait six years for an injunction, nor can a startup endure prolonged litigation that could jeopardize its existence.
The Delhi High Court’s actions in 2022 underscored the need for procedural innovation. The IPD Rules, enacted on February 24, 2022, following the dissolution of the IPAB, established a specialized forum. Rule 37 empowers the IP Division to refer cases to mediation, appointing subject-matter-trained mediators at any stage, without requiring party consent if the court deems an amicable resolution feasible. This procedural integration of mediation is being adopted by other High Courts including Madras, Calcutta, and Himachal Pradesh, with Bombay High Court currently developing its own IPD Rules following consultations.
These reforms highlight a natural synergy between specialization and mediation. Specialized forums attract knowledgeable counsel who can discern whether a dispute requires adjudication or can be resolved through dialogue. For instance, a trademark co-existence issue between regional entities is rarely worth protracted litigation, while a copyright dispute over a stock image is better settled through licensing and acknowledgment.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, having resolved over 5,200 IP and technology disputes, reports a 70% settlement rate in mediations. This is not due to leniency among IP lawyers but because IP disputes typically revolve around future commercial relationships rather than mere past grievances.
The evolving IP landscape in India is also grappling with challenges posed by generative AI as evidenced by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade’s ongoing consultation on the Copyright Act’s adequacy for AI-related issues. The Delhi High Court’s pending decision in ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI, India’s inaugural generative-AI copyright case, further illustrates the complexities at play. These cases extend beyond mere legal questions, involving licensing frameworks, public interest, and a rapidly advancing technology that often outpaces legal systems.
For young lawyers entering the field in 2026, the implications are clear. The Bar Council of India’s recommendation for a minimum monthly stipend for junior advocates acknowledges the economic challenges of early legal practice. Combining litigation with mediation advocacy and IP advisory offers a more sustainable path. Mediation is not a fallback option but a core component of legal strategy, particularly in IP disputes.
The shift towards mediation as a primary method of resolution is gaining momentum. Institutions like the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, and initiatives like NITI Aayog’s Online Dispute Resolution framework are paving the way. The success of the Mediation Act will hinge on its adoption by the legal community, while the IPD Rules’ effectiveness will depend on the availability of trained mediators. Ultimately, the profession must recognize mediation not as a sign of weakness but as a sophisticated form of advocacy, crucial for addressing the multifaceted challenges of modern IP disputes.
Joel Kenneth Johnson, practicing advocate at the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka and the Supreme Court of India, articulates the evolving role of mediation in the legal profession, emphasizing its necessity in a rapidly changing IP landscape.
