Summary

In the Matter of Arbitration Claims.

...

The License Agreement contained, as its Clause 17, an arbitration agreement. It was in the following terms:

'DISPUTE RESOLUTION: Any controversy, claim, or dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement or this agreement to arbitrate, including, without limitation, the interpretation, performance, formation, validity, breach, or enforcement of this Agreement, and further including any such controversy, claim, or dispute against or involving any officer, director, agent, employee, affiliate, successor, predecessor, or assign of a party to this Agreement (each, a "Dispute"), shall be fully and finally adjudicated by binding arbitration to the fullest extent allowed by the law (the "Arbitration"). The seat of the Arbitration shall be the London Court of International Arbitration.'

ZYX commenced arbitration by filing a Request for Arbitration on 31 January 2020. The tribunal is composed of a single arbitrator ('the Arbitrator'). ZYX's principal claim in the arbitration was for breach of contract. It specified that there had been breaches of Clauses 2 and 13 of the License Agreement. Clause 2 required RQP to pay a royalty and provide royalty statements; Clause 13 provided that if the License Agreement was terminated due to RQP's breach, RQP must cease all development of console ports and enhancements to Product 1. ZYX claimed that, based on sales information as at January 2020, RQP owed ZYX US$10,902,576.

RQP served a Response to Arbitration on 15 April 2020, and an Amended Response to Arbitration on 7 May 2020. One feature of the Response was that RQP contended that certain alternative claims which ZYX had advanced, for trade mark, passing off and copyright infringement were not within the arbitration clause. Another was that it was said that a further sequel to Product 2 ('Product 3'), which ZYX contended was an enhancement of Product 1, had been developed, not by RQP, but by another company, E.

On 21 August 2020 ZYX filed its Statement of Case. This included an allegation that if Product 3 had been developed by E, this had been the result of a breach by RQP of Clause 4 of the License Agreement, which prohibited the assignment of rights under the Agreement without the consent of the other party.

...