The expansion of the innovation driven industries in India, particularly in the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, telecommunications and standard essential patents (SEPs) which led to a significant rise in the complex patent disputes. While statutory remedies exist under the Patents Act, 1970 and through commercial courts, patent litigation in India continues to face structural challenges including prolonged timelines, high costs, technical intricacy and multi- jurisdictional enforcement concerns. Against this backdrop, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as arbitration, mediation frameworks are increasingly being considered as viable and innovation sensitive alternatives. This doctrinal paper critically examines whether the current ADR frameworks in India are institutionally and jurisprudentially equipped to handle the patent disputes effectively. It evaluates ADR through parameters of time efficiency, cost rationality, party autonomy, confidentiality, enforceability and preservation of commercial relationships. Particular attention is devoted to the doctrinal debate surrounding arbitrability, especially the distinction between right in rem (patent validity) and rights in personam (licensing, royalty, infringement settlements) and the evolving judicial approach in India. The research further undertakes a comparative study of the international institutional models, including the WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Center and administrative enforcement frameworks in jurisdictions such as China, Singapore, & The USA. By integrating comparative insights with domestic legal analysis, this paper assesses the feasibility of adapting specialized patent ADR mechanism within India’s legal architecture. It concludes by proposing structured reforms aimed at institutional strengthening, expert driven adjudication, technology enabled dispute resolution to transform ADR from a peripheral alternative into a central pillar of patent governance.