Third, the parties must choose a private procedure (for example. Arbitration) or public (. B for example, a USPTO procedure, such as IPR, PGR, CBM or ex parte reexamination) or a U.S. district court, for example. B a finding decision, in order to settle the dispute by proxy. Parties should consider several factors in determining the nature of the forum to be used. For example, a private forum preserves confidentiality and avoids the cancellation of a patent compared to other third parties (when the information would likely be contained in future litigation); On the other hand, public proceedings jeopardize a patent compared to other third parties. Although virtually any issue can be decided in private arbitration, a public forum may be limited to specific issues (for example. B an IPR only allows validity problems on the basis of the printed publication status). The parties should also take into account the speed and cost of the solution and (as in the next discussion) balance the legal issues relating to each forum. Status quo agreements are also used to suspend the usual limitation period to make a claim in court.
 The concept of a status quo agreement refers to different forms of agreements that can be concluded by companies to delay measures that might otherwise take place. A status quo agreement can be used as a form of defence of a hostile takeover when a target company receives a commitment from a hostile bidder to limit the amount of shares it buys or holds in the target company. By committing to the promise of the potential acquirer, the target company saves more time to set up new takeover defenses. In many cases, the target company promises in return to repurchase the equity holdings of the potential purchaser for the purpose of an increase. Contracting parties often enter into status quo agreements as they approach the expiry of a limitation period. This case shows the difference between the suspension of time and the lengthening of time for the purposes of the statute of limitations in a status quo agreement. With respect to interpretation, the Tribunal found that the status quo agreement had suspended time, so that the remainder of the limitation period continued after the expiry of the status quo agreement. Although the court does not deprive applicants of the possibility of (1) Stuart Howard Russell (2) Naomi Patricia Russell v (1) Peter Stone (2) PSP Consultants Limited (3) PSP Consultants Limited (3) PSP Consultants (a firm)   EWHC 1555 (TCC). It is notoriously difficult to predict the outcome of a patent procedure. In recent years, patent holders have achieved 77% and 57% success rates respectively in jury and bank trials1. 2 Since 2012, offenders have successfully challenged the validity of patents in the recent Cross-Party Review (RRI), Business Methods („CBM“) and The Review Procedure (PGR) in the United States.