Nordic IP Moot Court Competition

Course Plan

The Nordic Intellectual Property Moot Court Competition 2014

Hand Outs

/ifp/english/research/areas/intellectualpropertylaw/nordic-ip-moot-court-competition/nip-case-2014-(2).pdf

/ifp/english/research/areas/intellectualpropertylaw/nordic-ip-moot-court-competition/nip-case-2014-exhibit-1-(2).pdf

Statements of Claims

Team 1: Finland, University of Helsinki

Team 2: Finland, Hanken

- Exhibit 1

- Exhibit 2

- Exhibit 3

Team 3: Finland, University of Turku I

Team 4: Finland, University of Turku II

Team 5: Sweden, University of Stockholm

Team 6: Norway; University of Oslo

Claimants and Defendants

1. Claimant: Team 1 (Helsinki) - Respondent: Team 4 (Turku II)

2. Claimant: Team 2 (Hanken) - Respondent: Team 5 (Sweden)

3. Claimant: Team 3 (Turku I) - Respondent: Team 6 (Norway)

4. Claimant: Team 6 (Norway) - Respondent: Team 1 (Helsinki)

5. Claimant: Team 5 (Sweden) - Respondent: Team 3 (Turku II)

6. Claimant: Team 4 (Turku II) - Respondent: Team 2 (Hanken)

Statements of Defense

Team 1: Finland; University of Helsinki

Team 2: Finland; Hanken

Team 4: Finland; University of Turku II

Team 5: Sweden; University of Stockholm
- Appendix 1 - Appendix 2 - Appendix 3 - Appendix 4 - Appendix 5

Team 6: Norway; University of Oslo

 

Selection of teams for the final

The following teams have been seleceted for the Final:

Team 6 (Norway) as Claimant. Members of the team: Kristoffer Colban Eriksen, Morten Smedal Nadheim, Mikkel Lassen Ellingsen, Carl Petter Sky

Team 4 (Finland) as Defendant. Members of the team: Mikita Areshka, Enguerrand Lanoire, Minna-Mari Löhman

Team 5 (Sweden) as Defendant. Members of the team:  Amalia Struwe, Paulina Rehbinder

 

Program and practical information

See the program of the Final and information on travel, hotel etc here

 

Structure of the oral proceedings of the final

 

The final is structured in a following way:

The Claimant (Norway) will present the case for both the Defendants.

Defendant Team 5 (Sweden) will respond to the claim while Defendant Team 4 (Finland) leaves the Court Room.

Defendant Team 4 (Finland) will then return to the Court Room and respond to the claim.

After the defendants having pleaded their cases, the Claimant will each time be given maximum 10 minutes to rebut the Defendants’ arguments (“replikk”), whereupon the Defendants will be given additional 5 minutes to reply (“duplikk”). After the reply of the Finnish team, the proceedings are ending, and the decision is left for the jury to make.

 

 

Questions

Question 1:
Can we hand in our claims until the 6th of October 11.59 pm?

 

Answer: Yes

 

Question 2:

Should we assume that a translation of the claims according to e.g the Swedish Patent Act 22 § and 60 § has been made so that we can claim provisionally protection for the applications from the date that the applications were sent to the national patent offices if the patents are granted in the other countries? If yes when should consider that the translations has been sent to the patent offices?

 

Answer: You may assume that translations of the claims according to e.g. the Swedish Patent Act 22 § and 60 § have been made, and that they were sent to the patent offices prior to March 2014. Please note, however, that Tougkvas A/S does not argue that nylon is comprised by the term “polyester”, neither literally nor under the doctrine of equivalents.

 

Question 3:

Should we assume that the international registration of the trademark MOUNTAIN SAFE according to the Madrid Protocol was granted?

 

Answer: You may assume that an International Registration according to article 3 of the Madrid Protocol has taken place.

 

Question 4:

We wonder if we can presume that Hagfjäll will sell the ropes all around Europe including Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland?

Answer: Yes, you can presume that Hagfjäll will sell the ropes all around Europe including Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. However, at the date of the proceedings, the agreement with Rope Twist is the only sales agreement that has been entered into.

NEW:

Does this mean that Hagfjäll has not distributed any rope to consumers or others, even though they started getting deliveries mid January?

Answer : You may presume that Hagfjäll has started distribution, but the value of these sales is unknown. However, the parties agree that Tougkvas would have had a profit of 100.000 Euros if the company had got the contract with Hagfjäll. Rope Twist, Inc has so far not entered into any other agreements regarding the ropes in question.”

 

 

Question 5:

In the claims the team is writing:
"Our client has previously indicated at the initiation of the proceedings, that nylon was not comprised under the word polyester neither literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Our client is not bound by that statement, and is free to present another position before the tribunal. Consequently, it is now our position that nylon is comprised by the word polyester under the Doctrine of Equivalents."

Thereafter the team argues in depth for the Doctrine of Equivalents. Since you answered to one of our previous questions on the Nip website with the following reminder/by recalling "Please note, however, that Tougkvas A/S does not argue that nylon is comprised by the term “polyester”, neither literally nor under the doctrine of equivalents." we understand that the Doctrine of Equivalents exceeds the conditions of the case.

Our question is now if we after all should respond to the claims under the Doctrine of Equivalents, or if we just can conclude that such claims go beyond what the parties agreed upon as Tribunal's mandate?

 

Answer:

When it is stated in the facts of the case that «Repschlager did not argue that nylon was comprised by the term «polyester» in the patent, neither literally nor under the doctrine of equivalents», the purpose is to exclude this question of claim construction/doctrine of equivalents from the dispute, as it would raise chemical issues not suitable for a moot court competition for law students, and also be problematic in view of the time available. We therefore ask all teams not to pursue this further.

 

Question 6:

Our "opponent" has (the way we see it) missed several key arguments. We realize that these should be adressed under a seperate heading (as it says in the handout), but were wondering if we might include them in the Statement of Defense, as if our opponent had adressed them properly (we could mark them somehow). We fear our Statement of Defense will seem incomplete, untraditional and fragmentary if not.

 

Answer:

Our aim is to make the moot court competition as close as possible to IPR litigation in “real life”. If you believe that your opponents have missed some points that could have been raised in their favour, our advice is to respond to this as a lawyer would have responded to a writ with such omissions in a real case.

 

Question 7:

We have understood it as if each party will present its statement of facts, opening presentation, plea and closing arguments cohesively. Is this correct?

Answer:

That is correct. Unlike an oral hearing in “real life”, where there are separate opening statements and closing statements, the parties are here supposed to present their whole case, both the facts and their legal arguments, in one presentation. It is up to the parties to decide the structure of their presentation. The presentation should end with the statement of claim, though.

 

Question 8:

How long does each party have to present the above stated?

 

Answer:

Each party will have 40 minutes (Claimant from 13.15 to 13.55, Defendant I from 14.00 to 14.40, followed by comments of the Claimants (max 10 minutes) and reply of the Defendants (max 5 minutes). Defendant II will present their case from 15.15 to 15.55, followed by comments of the Claimants (max 10 minutes) and reply of the Defendants (max 5 minutes). (In other words, the coffee break scheduled for 16.00 may be 10 minutes delayed).

 

Question 9:

How bound are we of the statement of claims and how much can we use from our statement of defense when it comes to the parts that the Claimant haven't raised?

 

Answer:

As a general rule, the scope of the hearing should not be expanded beyond the frames of the Statement of Claims and Statements Defense. However, since there has been no opportunity to submit additional briefs after the Statements of Defense, the Claimants shall be entitled to rebut arguments raised in the statements of Defense that the Claimants did not address in their Statement of claims. The Defendants shall similarly be  allowed to raise new arguments to the extent this is necessary to meet these rebuttals of the Claimants.

 

Question 10

I would still like to ask whether we are allowed to use PowerPoint in our presentation or is the presentation supposed to be merely oral without PowerPoint etc?

Answer:

Yes, you can use Power Point presentation as they also do in a real Courtroom

 

 

 

Published Sep. 10, 2010 9:00 AM - Last modified Nov. 25, 2014 5:02 PM