including layered logic and other control systems developed pursuant to the SAA. Regardless of the fact that TurboChef accuses Maytag of misappropriating its protected intellectual property in products other than cooking appliances, the Court holds that Turbo-Chefs allegations “relate to” the SAA and the License Agreement. SAA, § 6.5; License Agreement, § 13.07 (“Any and all claims or controversies relating to this Agreement shall be finally resolved by arbitration.”). See Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (“[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language i o., 770 F.2d 40, 42 (3rd Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). See also, § 6.5(e) of the SAA (“to the extent
holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that when parties voluntarily submit to binding arbitration they generally believe that they are trading their right to appeal an arbitration award for a relatively speedy and inexpensive resolution to their dispute recognizing that an action at common law can be maintained on an arbitration award rendered under the parties submission that does not comply with the arbitration statute holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award