Mediationproblem Prelims1 Navitas 2024

ADRCC
NAVITAS
MEDIATION COMPETITION
PRELIMINARY ROUND 1
1. In the vibrant landscape of India's burgeoning tech industry, two
companies found themselves entwined in a complex dispute. LuxeTech
Inc., headquartered in the bustling metropolis of Mumbai, had made a
name for itself as a premier manufacturer of high-end electronics. Since its
establishment in 2010, LuxeTech had been at the forefront of innovation,
crafting sophisticated smartphones, laptops, and smart home devices.
Under the visionary leadership of CEO Sarah Johnson, the company had
grown to employ over 3,000 people, boasting annual revenues close to
₹6,000 crores.
2. Some thousand kilometers away, in the tech-centric city of Bengaluru,

was Bright Solutions, a rising star in software development. Founded in
2015, Bright Solutions had quickly carved a niche in AI-driven software,
gaining acclaim for its cutting-edge algorithms and user-friendly
interfaces.
3. The seeds of the dispute were sown in the spring of 2022 when
LuxeTech, in a strategic move to integrate AI into its devices, forged a
partnership with Bright Solutions. This collaboration was meant to be a
marriage of LuxeTech's hardware expertise with the software acumen of
Bright Solutions, creating a new line of intelligent electronic products.
4. Under the agreement, Bright Solutions was tasked with developing

exclusive AI software for LuxeTech's upcoming range of smart devices. In
return, LuxeTech would pay a substantial fee and a percentage of sales
from these AI-integrated products. Initially, this partnership was
celebrated as a groundbreaking collaboration in the Indian tech industry.
5. However, within a year, the relationship soured. LuxeTech accused Bright
Solutions of missing crucial development milestones, leading to significant
delays in product launches. Bright Solutions, in turn, contended that the
delays were due to LuxeTech's frequent changes in product specifications
and delays in providing necessary hardware for software testing.
6. The situation escalated when LuxeTech withheld a scheduled payment,

citing non-compliance with the agreement's terms. Bright Solutions
retaliated by threatening to terminate the contract and demanding
compensation for the work completed.
7. One of the new points of contention was the issue of intellectual property
rights. LuxeTech claimed that the AI technology developed by Bright
Solutions for their products contained elements that were suspiciously
similar to LuxeTech's proprietary technology. LuxeTech feared that their
intellectual property might be used in Bright Solutions' other projects,
potentially giving their competitors access to these innovations. Bright
Solutions vehemently denied these allegations, asserting that their
technology was entirely original and developed independently.
8. Another dispute arose over the marketing strategy for the AI-integrated
products. LuxeTech, with its established brand and market presence,
wanted to emphasize the hardware aspects of the products in their
marketing campaigns, while Bright Solutions pushed for a focus on the AI
software capabilities, believing it to be the unique selling point. This
disagreement led to further delays as marketing campaigns could not be
finalized, affecting the product launch timeline.
9. Furthermore, there was a conflict regarding the target markets for the
new products. LuxeTech aimed to initially launch in urban centres where
their brand was already strong, while Bright Solutions advocated for a
broader launch that included emerging markets, where they believed the AI
features would have a greater impact.
10. Facing a potential legal battle, which threatened not only financial strain but also
reputational damage, both companies, steeped in the Indian ethos of negotiation and
reconciliation, opted for mediation. This decision was influenced by the Indian legal
system's encouragement of alternative dispute resolution methods, as well as the
parties' desire to avoid the public spectacle and protracted nature of court
proceedings.
The Problem has been Drafted By:

Adv. Param Bhamra
(Founder, MediateGuru)
CONTACT
For any further queries and clarifications, please write to the event convenors
Kindly mention the subject of mail as “Query For Mediation Competition”
To reach out to our socials:
https://linktr.ee/NavitasLawFest
Event Convenors
Palak Kumari
(C) 9625515625
palakkumari.6414703522@maims.ac.in
Ruchi Bhatnagar
(C) 7827324600
ruchibhatnagar.7114703522@maims.ac.in
Gunjan Attri
(C)93107 38394
gunjanattri.1614703522@maims.ac.in

Mediationproblem Prelims1 Navitas 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mediationproblem Prelims1 Navitas 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mediationproblem Prelims1 Navitas 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADRCC

2. Some thousand kilometers away, in the tech-centric city of Bengaluru,

4. Under the agreement, Bright Solutions was tasked with developing

6. The situation escalated when LuxeTech withheld a scheduled payment,

The Problem has been Drafted By:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.