To try out, please refer to . Each entrant must prepare skeleton arguments of no more than 3 double-spaced pages (excluding a table of authorities) addressing the copyright issue. You will then be required to present a 10-minute oral argument, which will include responding to questions from the tryout judges.

Update 22 September 2021: For the tryout, prepare your skeleton arguments and oral submissions as if you are representing the appellant.

Please contact Ashley Moniz (amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca) as soon as possible to indicate your interest and availability via Zoom between 1pm and 5pm on October 5^th and 7^th. Following this, you will have until October 4 at 3pm to send us your skeleton arguments. Please include the following email subject heading in all communications: “Oxford Moot 2021 Tryouts – [FIRST & LAST NAME]”.

The Moots & Skills Program Director will contact successful applicants directly.

Please note that Rule 5.1(e) of the Academic Rules prohibits enrollment in more than one competitive lawyering simulation competition in any single academic year.

The team will be mentored by Prof. David Vaver and Prof. Pina D’Agostino and coached by a select team of IP practitioners on appellate advocacy. Students will receive 3 graded credits for their written arguments and 2 credits for their oral arguments if they advance. All credits are allocated to the Winter Term.

If you have any further questions, require special accommodations, or need more information, please email me directly at amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca.

We look forward to another exciting year with the Oxford Moot!

The post CALL FOR TRYOUTS - 2021/22 Oxford International IP Law Moot Team appeared first on IPOsgoode.

At the beginning of 2020, when the team was first scheduled to compete, compulsory licensing seemed like a fun thought experiment and a great theoretical moot problem about balancing IP rights and public health. It quickly became an eerily relevant issue as the world rapidly shut down and essential medical items like masks, gloves, and ventilators became precious commodities. Doors stayed shut, Wi-Fi capacity limits got tested, and in the wake of the initial disbelief that the world was collectively at war with the most covert of enemies, there was little room to feel disappointment about the cancellation of the competition. As the months wore on, and a new normalcy crystallized, the team got word that the competition was back on, and that the 2020 competitors were invited to return. Two of the team members came back, and a third joined ranks in January of 2021.

The moot organizers pivoted to a Zoom format and accommodated its largest set of teams to date, with 32 schools battling for the title. The first day entailed a virtual welcome ceremony. Moments after the team’s alarm clocks screamed to life at 6:30 am, each member logged into Zoom, sleepy-eyed and afflicted with the most serious cases of bed head. As the organizer scrolled through the competing teams’ slides, it slowly became apparent that Osgoode had miscalculated. Slide after slide passed through the platform, with many a suit and rarely a smile. Then Osgoode’s slide came roaring in with a beaver, a moose, and what appeared to be a team member drinking maple syrup straight from the bottle. Whatever impression they made, the Ozzies quickly made it clear that they meant business.��

The preliminaries were also no laughing matter, as the competition was fierce. Thankfully, Osgoode was blessed with the platinum package for coaching and the preliminaries were passed through with a breeze. As the team advanced on, excitement in the Osgoode community rose. The team entered the final match, buttressed with support from all angles in the Oz community, the IP space, and from their collective friends and family. The online format uniquely allowed all supporters to watch their team in action, and we felt the love. While Osgoode ultimately lost out in the grand final, the opportunity to experience this competition was a big “W”.

To our 2020 team member, Julianna Felendzer, we hope we did you proud. Thanks for helping us secure the invite to the oral rounds!

To our coaches Jennifer Davidson, Stephen Selznick, Any Obando and Giuseppina D’Agostino, we are forever grateful for your dedication and your support, especially when it was just a “hair toss, check your nails” kind of day!

Co-written by Anna Morrish, Alex Dumais, and Karin Kazakevich, 2021 Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot Runners Up

The post A Year in the Life of Three Oxford Moot Finalists appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The quartet of Jordan Fine, Alicja Puchta, Colin Lyon, and Adrienne Meyers are pleased to share their experience at the moot.

The Problem: A Dimpled Bottle and Sparkling Wine

Imagine: for 11 years, I have owned a valid patent monopoly on a glass bottle. The bottle has dimples lining its interior which enhance fizziness of carbonated drinks held within; but, I claimed the bottle specifically for enhancing sparkling wines. To what extent am I tied to that claim? In other words, can competitors fill my bottles with non-wine drinks (like sparkling apple cider, or non-alcoholic elderflower sodas) to avoid infringement?

Imagine too: I am not just an inventor but also a vineyard. So, for all 11 years, I have only sold a very affordable (and very profitable) high-alcohol wine in my bottle. It seems the local youths are getting quite drunk, quite fast from the combination of high alcohol and enhanced fizziness. Can my bottle patent be invalidated on grounds that it violates public policy or morality?

Finally, imagine: my wine belongs to a class of products known as “Erewine”: a double fermented sparkling white wine made from locally grown grapes. Does my competitor commit extended passing off by calling their non-alcoholic elderflower soda Erewine too?

The for the 2017 annual was packed with IP issues. It landed this year on the three major themes above: claim construction, invalidity for violating public policy or morality, and extended passing off.

The problem was drafted craftily by —Chair of the Organising Committee and co-ordinator for the moot—and it left certain key facts ambiguous (for example, the patent claim is significantly excerpted). Counsel for either side had ample wiggle room to devise and frame unique and creative arguments.

The Competition

After three months of careful legal research, drafting, reviewing, and editing two facta—one each for the Appellant and the Respondent—Osgoode submitted them to Oxford. A month later Osgoode was delighted to discover we were invited to the oral rounds, as our facta ranked among the top 24 of the nearly 60 teams that submitted.

Mooting demands outstanding advocacy. Accordingly, preparations and rehearsals escalated quickly. We had two months to sharpen our oral arguments before intellectual property practitioners and judges, and reach a sufficient level to compete with our adversaries.

Because of the competition’s international nature, it was essential that we could concisely answer complicated questions, the answers to which could span countless legal systems and common law principles. Comprehension, memorization, and delivery were crucial. Studying and practicing became a daily ritual. Finding any opportunity, we rehearsed in the shower to a panel of rubber ducks, practiced in public while walking our dogs, and presented submissions to our patient and supportive significant others and parents.

As we improved, we were given some exceptional opportunities. We argued weekly before panels of practitioners at and , including two of our coaches and . We were thrilled to argue before former Supreme Court Justice, the . We made trips to the Federal Court, before the , and even to the Supreme Court of Canada to argue before . The utter highlight of our legal education was arguing before Justice Abella from a podium frequented in landmark decisions by the best and brightest legal minds in Canada.

(L-R: Colin Lyon, Madam Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Aviv Gaon, Jordan Fine)

(L-R: Jordan Fine, Jennifer Davidson, Alicja Puchta, The Honourable Roger T. Hughes, Colin Lyon)

Preliminary Rounds (Thursday March 16th – Saturday March 17th)

After a scrumptious traditional English breakfast in Pembroke College’s exquisite dining hall we carted along ancient cobbled streets several suitcases packed with our heavy bundles of authorities to Oxford’s law faculty. Shortly following an introduction by Prof. Hudson, the competition began. Over two days we faced teams from four universities, before panels comprised of two or three judges.

On day one, we first confronted strong advocacy from Tsinghua (Beijing) before Hilary Pearson, PLC, and Professor Brian Havel (University of Oxford). We then met another tough foe in Monash (Melbourne), before Prof. Hudson (King’s College London), and Mitchell Beebe (Herbert Smith Freehills LLP).

On day two, we opened as appellants against the formidable champions, Bucerius (Hamburg), before Jonathan Ball (Norton Rose Fulbright), and Karen Fong (Collyer Bristow LLP). We ended the preliminary round against the other finalists and hometown rivals, Toronto, before Ian Starr (D Young & Co LLP), Jen Le Miere, (Kymab Ltd), and Marta Iljadica, (University of Aberdeen).

Despite strong performances in all four rounds—at least according to our coaches, Aviv Gaon (Osgoode Hall Law School PhD Candidate) and Jennifer Davidson (Deeth Williams Wall LLP)—we finished the preliminary rounds modestly with only one win and three losses. At dinner on the eve of the quarter-finals, we were surprised to learn we were among the top eight teams; little did we know at that time our scores placed us as the top seed entering the playoffs!

Playoffs (Saturday March 18th)

We once again faced Bucerius—as respondents this time per moot rules—in the quarter-finals, before a panel of three judges including Geoffrey Pritchard, (Three New Square) and once again Marta Iljadica. Facing strong advocacy from both sides [the author comments as impartial sideline observer acting exclusively for the appellants] the panel had a very tough decision to make. Ultimately, Bucerius was victorious.

(Of course, not all was lost for team Osgoode; albeit disappointed by the loss, we were granted an extra few hours to tour Oxford’s local scenery and ancient pubs.)

In the final round, Bucerius faced respondents from the University of Toronto. The finalists argued in front of a panel of three esteemed judges in the Honourable Mr Justice Birss, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke, and the Right Honourable Lord Justice Floyd. The hot bench challenged the competitors with posers, but also met them frequently with humour and wit. It appeared close at the round’s end, and Bucerius took the win.

The Gala

The gala took place shortly after the finals, and once again in the charming Pembroke dining hall. During a three-course meal, the award winners were announced (see the complete list , along with pictures from the finals and gala ). As noted, Osgoode was surprised and delighted to receive the award for highest ranked team after the preliminary rounds.

The Oxford Moot was an utterly spectacular experience. We all agreed that the work we put into our written and oral arguments exceeded any other academic pursuits before. We are certainly all stronger legal minds and advocates as a result. Make no mistake, we had fun too. We owe special thanks to Professor David Vaver for his support and guidance; to Justices Abella, Rothstein, and Hughes for taking the time to hear us argue the morality of dimpled bottle patents; and our coaches who were with us week after week: Jennifer, Aviv, Stephen Selznick and Stephen Henderson from Cassels Brock. We could not have succeeded without you. You each made such astoundingly significant contributions to our legal education and we hope in turn we have made you proud of our accomplishments.

(L-R: Aviv Gaon, Alicja Puchta, Jordan Fine, Colin Lyon, Jennifer Davidson, Prof. David Vaver)

Jordan Fine is Senior Editor of the IPilogue and Intellectual Property Journal and a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.�� He was happy to contribute this blog on behalf of his teammates, Colin Lyon, Alicja Puchta and Adrienne Meyers.

The post Protecting Fizziness: Osgoode at the 15th Annual Oxford Intellectual Property Moot appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Ann Phibian��v The Canadian Frog Association

The hypothetical scenario devised by the moot’s sponsor, , raised several novel copyright issues. The plaintiff, Phibian, licensed 50 Shades of Green��to the defendant, the Canadian Frog Association (“CFA”) for promotional use. Phibian revoked her licence upon her discovery that one of CFA’s conservation programs, aptly titled "Switch and Bait", resulted in the death of frogs belonging to an over-populated species.

After complying with Phibian’s request to nullify the licence, the CFA contracted Greenback to replace Phibian's work. Using a Photoshop-like editing program,��and One Giant Leap as a mutual source, Greenback generated a suspiciously similar logo for the CFA. Outraged by the��similarity between her work and Greenbacks, Phibian sued for copyright and moral right infringement.

Among many novel copyright questions raised, the primary issues concerned: [1] the correct current approach to substantial similarity analyses of two works which borrow heavily from the public domain; [2] the admissibility of expert testimony and the role it should play in comparing two works; [3] the correct current approach to prove a work was copied; and, regarding moral rights, [4] the appropriate test for evaluating the potential prejudice to an author’s honour or reputation and how to apply that test.

The problem was drafted craftily and left certain key facts ambiguous (for example, there is no image of either leaping frog design found in the problem), so counsel for either side had ample wiggle room to devise and frame unique and creative arguments.

The Competition

After nearly five months’ of preparation, the Osgoode Hall Law School team attended the Moot on Friday February 19 and 20 at the Federal Court of Canada, along with eight other teams from law schools across Canada. The team was comprised of Alicja Puchta, Keton Motta-Freeman (Appellants), Jordan Fine, Ran He (Respondents), and Asad Akhtar (Researcher, both sides).

The competition opened midday Friday with a keynote speech delivered over lunch by��the Honourable Mr.��, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (and current Distinguished Visiting Professor at Osgoode). His lecture, titled “The Value of Copyright: Applying the Principles of Technological Neutrality and Balance”, focused on the recent Supreme Court decision [SODRAC], Justice Rothstein’s final written decision before his retirement.

The SODRAC decision is contentious. The majority’s endorsement of technological neutrality in copyright has been argued as outdated and anti-technology. It was recently the subject of a recent , organized by Osgoode and the University of Toronto, where three panels dissected and debated the decision's potential impact on the , , , and all other��industries, institutions and organizations who create, use, license, and manage copyright works.

Justice Rothstein discussed the reasons behind his majority opinion and the dissenting opinions by Justice Abella and Justice Karakatsanis. In particular, he focused on legislative language, statutory interpretation and the intentions of Parliament (or lack thereof) which supported his decision that the Copyright Act should not be interpreted or applied to favour or discriminate against any particular form of technology. The team discussed the lecture and SODRAC during our breaks, and while some of us were unsatisfied by the result of the decision, we were all persuaded by Justice Rothstein’s sound reasoning. His presence on the bench and contributions to matters of Canadian IP law will be missed, but we are proud and thrilled to have him join the Osgoode community.

Qualifying Rounds

The preliminary rounds shortly followed the luncheon at the Federal Court building in downtown Toronto.��Each team was required to participate in three rounds. At this stage, the panels were composed of three members drawn from the judiciary and IP bar.

The Appellants kicked off the competition for Team Osgoode with submissions to Justice Victoria Chiappetta (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), Mark Biernacki (Smart & Biggar LLP) and Mario Bouchard (Former General Counsel of the Copyright Board of Canada). Despite a persistent barrage of hard hitting questions, the Appellants stood strong.��Their second submission on Friday was argued in front of the panel consisting of Justice Allan Diner (Federal Court), Allyson Nowak (Norton Rose Fulbright LLP), and Trent Horne (Bennett Jones LLP). The final submissions for the Appellant Team were made on Saturday morning to Mario Bouchard, Alexandra Peterson (Torys LLP), and Michael Charles (Bereskin & Parr LLP). Having received strong praises from the Moot Bench, Keton and Alicja’s strong performances in all three rounds placed them first among Appellant teams at the close of the preliminary rounds.

The Respondent Team began their rounds on Friday with submissions to Justice Paul Perell (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), David Aitken (Aitken Klee LLP), and Sana Halwani (Gilbert’s LLP). The Respondents argued two rounds on Saturday Morning: the first was argued to a panel consisting of Justice James O’Reilly (Federal Court), Heather Watts (Deeth Williams Wall LLP), and Brian Gray (Norton Rose Fulbright LLP); the latter to Jek-Hui Sim (Chairperson, Patent Appeal Board), Stephen Selznick (Cassels Brock LLP), and Essien Udokang (Baker & McKenzie LLP). Despite their vigorous delivery of oral arguments, Jordan and Ran finished in a tight fourth place among the fierce competition of Respondent teams, and just shy of making the playoff rounds.

Semi-Final Round

The Osgoode Appellants moved on to the semi-finals, where they faced the University of Ottawa (last year’s defending champions). Their��panel consisted of three judges: and Sharpe from the Ontario Court of Appeal, and Justice Gauthier from the Federal Court of Appeal. The round began with early rapid-fire questions from the judges, who peppered all four mooters throughout their submissions. With regards to the copyright issues, the judges were particularly interested in specific points of law, and whether, on the facts of the case, copyright infringement had truly been made out. The moral rights discussion was far more policy-infused: the judges asked questions at length about the appropriate test for demonstrating prejudice to an artist’s reputation. Everyone held their ground admirably, with both teams offering each other their heartfelt congratulations. The Osgoode team was ecstatic to see Justice Gauthier attend the final round to show her support (and even help offer a few last minute tips!) The team was also lucky enough to speak at length with Justice Brown later that evening at dinner, which was certainly one of the day’s highlights.

The Finals

The Osgoode Appellants made the finals and faced respondents from the University of Toronto. The two teams argued in front of a panel of five judges: Justice��Suzanne Côté��and��Justice��Rothstein��of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice��David Stratas��of the Federal Court of Appeal, Justice��Kathryn Feldman��of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and Justice��Roger Hughes��of the Federal Court.��The judges asked tough questions, forced counsel to jump back and forth quickly between their submissions, and had them recall specific details from case law and decisions of the��fictional��lower courts. Neither of the teams crumbled under the pressure and the competition appeared close when the round closed.

The Gala

At the gala that evening, during a three-course meal at the stately University Club, the winners were announced. The respondents from the University of Toronto (Stefan Case��and��Victoria Hale)��took home first place and best respondent's factum award, and the appellants from Osgoode (Alicja Puchta��and��Keton Motta Freeman) took home second place and best appellant's factum award.��Stefan Case from the University of Toronto won best oral advocate and best mooter in a non-graduating year. Members of the awards committee described at length how impressed they were by����������mooters that day.

The Fox Moot was an incredible experience. A lot of work went into our written and oral arguments, and we would all agree that in addition to improving our legal skills and understanding of IP legal principles, we had a lot of fun along the way. A special thanks is owed to our coaches from Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP: Steven Kennedy, Eric Mayzel and Peter Henein. Our success is a result of their tutelage and patient willingness to endure frog puns.

The post Osgoode Wins Best Factum, Takes 2nd Place at the 2016 Fox IP Moot appeared first on IPOsgoode.

�ճ������is intended to promote education in the intellectual property field and to provide students with the opportunity to interact with jurists of the Supreme, Ontario, and Federal Courts and experienced practitioners of intellectual property law. The moot is named in honour of the late��, one of Canada’s leading intellectual property scholars and advocates.

This year's moot problem focused on the "patent bargain," and in particular, two hot topics in the world of patent litigation: sufficient disclosure under s.27(3) of the Patent Act and the patentability of diagnostic methods. In the problem’s hypothetical scenario, the Appellant had patented a process for diagnosing early stage chronic kidney disease through the isolation of a particular bacteria in saliva. The Respondent had admittedly infringed the Appellant’s patent; however, they had challenged the validity of that patent on the grounds that the Appellant's document contained insufficient disclosure and that the invention claimed was a mere scientific principle (the correlation between the bacteria and the disease). The Appellant was successful at trial; however, the patent was ultimately invalidated by the fictional Intellectual Property Court of Appeal. The moot was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Intellectual Property, the highest court in the land.��This simple premise was greatly complicated by a number of carefully worded situational factors that allowed for compelling arguments to be made on behalf of either party.

(from left) Benjamin Farrow, Isabella Ssozi, Jeremy Fisher, Faye Alipour and Jason Hayward comprised the 2014 Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School. Photo Credit: Alan Macek

Benjamin Farrow is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and a member of this year’s Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post All About 'The Bargain' at the 2014 Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Full results from the Harold G. Fox Canadian Intellectual Property Moot can be accessed .

was a crafty piece written by and his esteemed colleagues at . The problem��took advantage of the recent developments that the Supreme Court of Canada’s have brought to infringement and fair dealing. Specifically, we were compelled to argue first whether the shortening of a licensed, long-lost Batman film to a song-specific clip (“Batman Style”, popularized by the fictional Korean artist “Pi”) infringed the copyright of the appellant’s sound recording. Second, if infringement was established, we turned to whether the respondent, Professor Michael Caine, could rely on the “private study” exception for fair dealing in providing the sound recording in its original context within the cinematographic work. It was a very fun problem, and I had the particularly onerous task of arguing that Caine’s usage was indeed fair dealing with the work.

The Osgoode team that I proudly represented consisted of myself (, Class of 2014) and Ryan Keller (Class of 2014) representing the respondent Michael Caine (and we had the pleasure of enduring many “Team Ryan” and “R-Squared” colloquialisms throughout the moot), David Bowden (Class of 2014) and Robert Trenker (Class of 2014) representing the appellant Thomas Hardie Music, Inc, with (Class of 2013) rounding out the team as our invaluable researcher.�� We all took Legal Reform seminars with ��in the fall 2012 term, and we all soon found out just how valuable Professor Vaver’s tutelage was.

Our preparation was extensive. We received the problem in mid-November, but with the time constraints that fall exams placed upon us, we did not sink our teeth into the problem until mid-December. Our fantastic coaches, , , and from provided us with timelines and support throughout the process, which was invaluable.�� IP Osgoode's own served as the faculty advisor to the team.�� Speaking on behalf of the entire team, we would like to offer our deepest thanks to them. We owe a great deal of our success to our coaches. After countless hours of factum prep, including many Google Doc and Skype sessions, our appellant and respondent teams submitted our respective facta for grading by the Fox Moot Committee in early January. Then began the oral preparation. We had many grinding practice sessions with constructive feedback from our coaches at Cassels (who themselves argued many of the cases that we cited at the Supreme Court – giving us unique insights regarding appellate advocacy) as well as innumerable team sessions, and we quickly found ourselves ready to moot!

The Fox IP Moot took place this past weekend (February 22-23, 2013) at the Federal Court of Canada, in downtown Toronto. Teams from five law schools across Ontario competed for the Harold G. Fox Cup: Osgoode Hall Law School, Queens University, University of Toronto, University of Windsor, and Western University. The competition began on noon Friday with the Fox IP Lecture, delivered by the Honorable , Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Chief Judge Rader gave a highly entertaining lecture: IP Rights – Do the Remedies Fit the Infringement?, which spoke to the forces that he perceives as governing IP law. While I was disappointed that the "forces" did not pertain to a Jedi versus Imperial struggle, I was captivated by his views on the misconceptions of “patent trolls”, the strong influence of the media on IP cases, and the “culture” of using litigation as a commercial strategy. However, what stood out to me the most was his concerns about the re-entry of the non-expert jurist in the field of IP. In a personal conversation, he acknowledged that IP is becoming a more “sexy” field of law, and the Supreme Courts (most of which do not have IP experts, save for the Honourable of our own Court) are taking a greater interest in what has historically been the predominant realm of the Federal Courts. He cited the primary difference as one of approach, where the Federal Courts emphasize bright line tests and administrative standards, other Courts favour reasonableness standards. I could talk in much greater length about this riveting lecture, which also included strong encouragement for students to learn international IP law and references to , but in the interest of space, I must move on.

Shortly after the lecture (which was delivered while we enjoyed a decadent lunch at Arcadian Court), the first of two preliminary rounds started. New to this year’s competition, each appellant and respondent team would face the opposing side of every other school. This meant that we would moot twice in each of the two preliminary rounds (with the second held Saturday morning), with the aggregate score of our four preliminary moots and our factum determining which teams would move on to the playoff rounds. In the preliminary round, each panel consisted of one jurist and two IP practitioners, which made for a challenging and interesting dynamic. I must say that the that Dimock Stratton was able to attract to this event was, as always, top notch and we were truly humbled in appearing before them.

The preliminary rounds were a lot of fun, and some of the panels were incredibly challenging. I personally faced the difficult task of convincing some very “user rights” focused professionals that we should broadly interpret “private study” in the context of fair dealing. All of our team members became very passionate about our positions, and this certainly helped our persuasiveness in the Moot Court. After each round, we were given extensive feedback from the panels, which was a unique and fruitful way to develop our advocacy skills. Learning from the perspective of judges, who regularly hear appeals, and practitioners, who regularly make them, was one of the greatest benefits of this competition. Perhaps my favourite (and potentially embarrassing) piece of feedback was from the Honourable Justice Lois Roberts of the Ontario Superior Court who praised my voice, calling it “beautiful” and suggesting that I should be a singer. However, I refrained from serenading future judges. Justice Roberts also invited us all to sit in her seat at the bench, allowing us to gain her visual perspective, which made us all cognizant of the subtleties that the judiciary can pick up on.

After lunch on Saturday, the semi-finalists were announced, and we were extraordinarily lucky in that both of our teams advanced. Myself and Ryan as the respondents placed first among respondents in the preliminary rounds, while David and Robert placed second among appellants, in what were both inevitably close races. In a strange and wonderful twist of fate, this set the stage for an all-Osgoode semi-final round in front of the Honourable Justice Robert Blair of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the newly appointed Honourable Justice Michael Manson from the Federal Court, and the Honourable Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C. a former chair of the CRTC. We both had undoubtedly our best rounds to date, bringing our best arguments forward while facing a very sophisticated and challenging bench, and had a lot of fun doing it. To faceoff against our own teammates who we have been working, commiserating, and practising with for months was exciting and a great way for the moot to come full circle.

In what was later described to me by Justice Manson as the toughest decision that he has made as a jurist yet, our incredible respondent team, David and Robert, moved on to represent Osgoode in the finals. Ryan and I could not have conceded to better opponents. In a packed courtroom full of other competitors, practitioners, friends, and academics (including IP Osgoode Director��Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino), David and Robert faced the University of Toronto respondent team who had trumped the Western appellants in their semi-final round. Although the teams were anonymous to the judges at the time, this created a Subway Series that the Fox Moot had never seen before, and a proper (yet cordial) grudge match. In a panel that most experienced litigators would fear, our finalists’ submissions were received by five judges: Justice Rothstein, Chief Judge Rader, the Honourable Justice Stephen Goudge of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Honourable Justice David Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Honourable Justice Judith Snider of the Federal Court. Both teams were challenged early and often, with Chief Judge Rader proving to be particularly adversarial, hitting each oralist with a broad and difficult question within 30 seconds of commencing. Each of the four oralists were graceful, deferent, and rose to the occasion.

We were kept waiting for a few hours until an awards dinner at the University Club. In the end, Osgoode was triumphant with David Bowden and Robert Trenker claiming the Harold G. Fox Cup for the best mooting team. Myself (Ryan Heighton) and Ryan Keller took home the Gordon F. Henderson Award for the (which we could not have done without the hours of editing and revisions by Danny Titolo). The Donald F. Sim and Dimock Stratton LLP awards for best oral advocate and best mooter in a non-graduating year, respectively, went to Kevin Siu from the University of Toronto respondent team. Needless to say, we are incredibly proud to be members of the Osgoode community and represent the school well at such a prestigious event.

I could easily write another 2000 words to further texturize all of the exciting, nerve-wracking, and hilarious things that happened this weekend and it would not do this event justice. Perhaps the biggest thing that I will take away from this moot is the value of collaboration in law. As with many other fields of law, the intellectual property bar is incredibly collaborative, cordial, and this is evidenced by the generous and vast that the event received. Indeed, this event would not be an annual resounding success if not for this collaboration. We would like to thank all of the sponsors, the organizers, our coaches, and professors for making this possible. The event was orchestrated flawlessly, the abundance of food and drink at the receptions was remarkable, and everyone involved was incredibly accommodating and friendly. On a more personal note, I want to thank my teammates for making this a truly enjoyable and enlightening experience. I truly believe that we were as successful as we were because of our great collaboration and constant challenging of one another, and this will certainly persist as one of my most memorable law school experiences.

As a parting note, I would just like to remind all of the gentlemen reading this to heed the advice of Madam Justice Snider, and be sure to button up your jacket when you stand before the Court.

(from left) Danny Titolo, Ryan Heighton, Ryan Keller, David Bowden, and Robert Trenker comprised the award-winning 2013 Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School.

Ryan Heighton is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was a proud member of the 2013 Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post 'Osgoode Style' Wins Big at 2013 Harold G. Fox Canadian Intellectual Property Moot appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Representing Osgoode are Ryan Heighton and Ryan Keller in the role of the Respondent, Robert Trenker and David Bowden in the role of the Appellant, and Danny Titolo to round out the team.

The Team is coached by , a member of IP Osgoode’s Advisory Board, and , all partners at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. Founder & Director of IP Osgoode, , serves as the team’s Faculty Advisor.

The is intended to promote education in the intellectual property field and to provide students with the opportunity to interact with jurists of the Supreme, Ontario, and Federal Courts and experienced practitioners of intellectual property law. The moot is named in honour of the late , one of Canada’s leading intellectual property scholars and advocates.

The 2013 Fox Moot will be held on February 22-23, 2013.���� The , Chief Justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, will be delivering the Fifth Annual Harold G. Fox Moot Lecture.

The post Introducing the 2012-2013 Fox Moot Team for Osgoode appeared first on IPOsgoode.

centered on remedies for patent infringement. In the problem’s hypothetical scenario, the defendant had admittedly infringed the plaintiff’s valid patent. What remained to be determined was the appropriate quantum of damages and whether a permanent injunction ought to be granted for the remainder of the patent’s life. This simple premise was greatly complicated by a number of carefully worded situational factors that allowed for compelling arguments to be made on behalf of either party.

Eight teams from across Canada participated in the competition this year: Osgoode Hall Law School, Queen’s University, the University of Alberta, the University of Ottawa, the University of Toronto, the University of Victoria, the University of Windsor and Western University.

The competition began Friday midday with the Fox IP Lecture, this year delivered by Osgoode’s own Professor David Vaver. His speech, entitled “Intellectual Property: Is it Still a ‘Bargain’?”, evaluated the common view of intellectual property rights as a bargain struck between creators and the state viz the public. As always, Professor Vaver’s message was as thought-provoking as it was eloquently delivered. In the words of thanks delivered by Justice Cronk of the Ontario Court of Appeal, it was apparent to all in what high regard the legal community – both in Canada and internationally – holds Professor Vaver.

The first of two preliminary rounds began shortly after Professor Vaver’s lecture in the Federal Court’s courtrooms in downtown Toronto. Each preliminary round had three����from both the judiciary and the intellectual property bar. After the first day of competition, we enjoyed a reception – graciously hosted by Dimock Stratton LLP – where we got the chance to socialize with the other schools’ competitors as well as various members of academia, the judiciary and private practice. It was incredibly exciting to speak to so many of the judges whose decisions we had become familiar with over the course of our research and in law school more broadly. These were the true celebrities to us law students; it was fascinating to get a sense of the judges’ personalities and listen to their perspectives on various matters of law and life.

The second preliminary round began early Saturday morning and the semi-finalists were announced shortly after lunch. Our Respondent team, comprising Kyle Rees and Alex Chang, were among the fortunate few who progressed. Following an excellent performance in the semi-finals, they went on to the final round and were only narrowly beaten by the opposing team from Western University. The panel for the final round included Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada (IP Osgoode Advisory Board Member), Chief Justice Randall Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Justice Eleanore Cronk of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Justice Edgar Sexton of the Federal Court of Appeal, and Justice Roger Hughes (IP Osgoode Advisory Board Member)��of the Federal Court. To say it was an active panel would be a staggering understatement. Every mooter who stood before the panel was met with an overwhelming barrage of questions and comments, but each, to his credit, maintained his composure and offered thoughtful responses.

The were announced at the awards dinner on Saturday night at the University Club. The Harold G. Fox Cup for the best mooting team was awarded to Charles Pettypiece and Benjamin Reingold of Western University. The Donald F. Sim Award for the best oral advocate was given to Vanessa Ibe of the University of Windsor. Alex Wai and Christopher Langan of the University of Toronto earned the Gordon F. Henderson Award for the best factum. Charles Pettypiece of Western University was also awarded the Dimock Stratton LLP award for the best mooter in a non-graduating year. Following dinner and the presentation of awards, we enjoyed our second reception and had another chance to mingle with the other competitors and panellists. This experience itself was reason enough to have participated in the competition.

The team would like to offer profound thanks to the many people who made for such an engaging and successful competition. Thank you to all of the organizers, in particular co-chairs Professor Emir A.C. Mohammed from the University of Windsor and Angela Furlanetto of Dimock Stratton LLP, as well as their many assistants from both camps. Thank you to all of the many for their remarkable generosity. On a more personal note, sincerest thank you to our coaches Casey Chisick (IP Osgoode Advisory Board Member), Shane Hardy and Tim Pinos of Cassels Brock for their invaluable assistance and support in the months leading up to the competition.

(from left) Amanda Laren, Aaron Kucharczuk, Dan Whalen, Alex Chang and Kyle Reese��comprised the 2012 Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School.

��Daniel Whalen is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and a member of this year's Harold G. Fox Moot team for Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Reflections on the Harold G. Fox 2012 Canadian Intellectual Property Moot appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In addition, Osgoode's very own��Professor David Vaver��will be giving the keynote address on��Intellectual Property: Is it Still a ‘Bargain’?��Professor Vaver's lecture will be taking place at��12pm at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel (123 Queen St. West, Toronto, Canada). All are welcome to attend.

Stay tuned for more Fox Moot coverage in the coming week.

The post Reminder: Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot This Friday (February 17, 2012) appeared first on IPOsgoode.