Osgoode mooters recognized for their oral and written advocacy at the Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot

Osgoode mooters recognized for their oral and written advocacy at the Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot

Madeleine Worndl, Lilian Esene, Jennifer Manley, Ibrahim Arif & Natalie Bravo are competitors on Osgoode's 2023 Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot Team and JD Candidates at Osgoode Hall Law School.

This past weekend, students from Osgoode Hall Law School participated in the Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot. The students had an amazing experience participating in the moot and brought home some incredible awards.

The Respondent Team, consisting of Lilian Esene (’23) and Madeleine Worndl (’23) received the Gordon F. Henderson Award for Best Respondent Factum. Lilian and Madeleine also placed first among respondent teams from the preliminary oral rounds and advanced to the semi-final of the top four teams in an exciting round before sitting and former justices of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

The Appellant Team, consisting of Jennifer Manley (’24) and Ibrahim Arif (’24), received the Award for the Runner-Up Appellant Factum. Jennifer and Ibrahim also placed third among appellant teams in the preliminary rounds.

The students explored an interesting and complex moot problem about infringement of a patent protecting a novel method of using W-band frequencies for telecommunications. The appeal raised issues about (i) whether the specific claim in the patent protecting the invention at issue was invalid due to overbreadth, and (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief if the patent was held to be valid. The issuance of injunctive relief following a finding of infringement pursuant to s. 57 of the Patent Act is the usual remedy that upholds the bargain theory of patent law. However, since the plaintiff in this matter had not yet practiced its invention and had a history of procuring patents for their licensing program, the plaintiff’s conduct in this case raised concerns about whether injunctive relief should be denied on equitable grounds because the plaintiff may be characterized as a “patent troll.”

This was an incredible opportunity for the students to explore not only the technical aspects of patent law regarding the scope of claims, but also the equitable concerns related to the issuance of an appropriate remedy.

The students started to prepare for the moot in the fall by researching case law and secondary sources to formulate their arguments. Following this, the students began to draft and refine their facta. The students then practiced oral arguments on a weekly basis for a month before the competition.

The moot was held at the Federal Court in downtown Toronto and was the first return to in-person mooting since 2020.

The students would like to thank their coaches, Chandimal Nicholas and Kassandra Shortt for their guidance and unwavering support, as well as the team’s researcher, Natalie Bravo, for her support throughout the competition.