•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 9-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in




Welcome to the 1st Annual Jindal Technology Law & Policy Moot Court Competition 2016, organised at Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat!

We will bring to you LIVE updates from the competition and hope to keep you entertained(and informed) throughout. You can also follow us on our facebook page

The 1st edition of the Jindal Moot seeks to expose participants to the unique area of the law interfacing intellectual property and competition at the high technology sector. The competition case poses contemporary questions within these fields, including contentious issues on intellectual property rights amounting to an investment, anti-competitive conduct in relation to standard essential patents and the expropriation of intellectual property before an international forum for Investment arbitration.

We follow the dispute between Fun-fix and the Republic of Paradice as Fun-fix fights for its Patent Right in its communication protocol which allows it to access spirit communications and to also speak with willing spirits. Er, the world is very different(..) in this parallel universe circa 2012-2014. 

The preliminary rounds will take place today and tomorrow.Semi-Finals and finals are being held at Taj, Delhi on the 1st of May.

Please Stay tuned for Updates starting Quaterfinals at 4:30 pm(30th May)!

UPDATES: 30th May, 2016

3:45 Watch this space for announcement of breaks in about an hour.

5:35: Teams advancing to the Quaterfinals are:

1.Christ University

2. NLU, Delhi

3.ILS, Pune



6.NLU- Odisha

7. AIL, Mohali

8.NLU- Jodhpur 

Congratulations to all the teams who made it!

We will begin live updates of the Quaterfinals shortly.

Courtroom 1

AIL Mohali (Claimants) v Odisha(Respondent)

The First speaker of the Claimant argues that the refinement of a product is a component of R&D. While a few of the questions rattled her, she regains her poise and remains on point. Stay Cool, Speaker 1!

After a lenghty monologue, the Bench interrupts regarding quantum of investment needed to be made for it to be an investment. The first speaker is unable to provide any case law for her assertion. The bench is not impressed.

Let us now take a look into some of the other Courtrooms!

Court Room No. 2:


Claimants argue that rejection of patent application was arbitrary. The Speaker says logic behind law is wrong and logic must be considered regarding interpretation of Section. The bench interrupts saying this is a tribunal under the BIT and not a court in Paradice which can review laws and urges the Speaker to argue on grounds of arbitrariness under the BIT. The Speaker, in his passionate and booming demeanour, continues on. 

The Speaker takes  time to understand the arbitrator's questions on compulsary license and spends a lot of time on cross-questioning the Arbitrator to check what the question is. Doesnt seem like a wise Move.

Onto the Next Courtoom.

Court Room 3:

Christ University v. NLU-Jodhpur

The first speaker from the Respondent's side calmly explains her arguments on the issue of expropriation. There are no questions from the bench at this point. She uses a barrel of cases to support her assertions. Nice going, Speaker 1!

Court Room 4: 

ILS Pune v. NLU Odisha 

The second speaker from the Respondent is arguing how Paradice has not defeated any legitimate expectations. The judge interrupts his arguments by stating that as Paradice is party to the TRIPS agreement, that provides legitimate expectations that its provisions will be followed. The speaker is able to remain calm and attempts to answer all questions. There seems to be an onslaught of questions at this point, but kudos to the Speaker for his collected demeneour!


THAT was a glimpse into our Courtrooms as our Quaterfinalists battle it out!

Watch this space to see who advances on. 


The teams to advance to the Semi-Finals are:

1. Christ University


3.AIL Mohali

4. ILS, Pune

Congratulations to all teams! 

Stay Tuned for LIVE updates from the semi-finals and finals, being organised at the Taj Hotel, New Delhi.

 1st May, 2016

Semi-Finals Courtroom 1: 

Christ University(Claimant) v. ILS Pune(Respondent):

12:30 PM:The first speaker begins her issue arguing that there was an investment present in the state of Paradice. 

The bench's constant questioning seem to unnerve the speaker who is ready to compete with a Japanese bullet train in speed. The bench is umimpressed with her reply on interpretation rules under the VCLT and the use of preamble as such. The speaker throws around a plethora of cases and is unable to justify such usage when the bench comments that there is no precedential value of all these cases. 

The speaker is unable to finish her answers and couldnt finish her issue on expropriation. We wish the second speaker luck!

1:10 PM: The second speaker seems to match the first speaker in speed. I am unsure about the judges, but we are struggling to catch up. 

The speaker is facing constant questions with respect to relevance of White Industries v. India! The Speaker remains well-structured in his answers and maintains his calm. A particular question on rejection of patent application by PPO unnerves the Speaker as he struggles to answer the same. The bench asks the speaker to make his point on FET and not argue random issues with regard to domestic laws. The speaker argues that FET covers denial of justice which covers misapplication of law. The bench remains unconvinced. We think he may need another ground under the FET!

With 5 minutes left, the speaker is still arguing his first issue. In this round, the judges seem to be speaking more than the speakers! 

We must however admit that the Speaker is quite perseverent. He continuous to assert his arguments with extreme confidence, but continues to face constant questioning. Another stumble comes in when the judge has to explain what a standard/established test is. 

2:00 PM: The second speaker of the respondent begins in a very calm and polite manner. Almost immediately, she is asked a barrage of questions. She remains polite, calm and stays to her point. The speaker concedes that while different arms have contradictory stances on the protocol being immoral and being an essential service, she reasons it out with police power provisions and is allowed to continue to her next prong. 

The Speaker is stuck on the issue of when the patent application becomes an investment, and thus can be expropriated. The speaker makes an argument stating that investment was made only after patent application was filed, as argued by the Claimant. However, the bench dismisses that by saying that they are not bound by the Claimant's understanding of the fact scenario. 

2:40 PM: During rebuttals, the Claimant was allowed to finish her arguments on expropriation. While the respondent was questioned, she was able to finish her sur-rebuttals succesfully. 

Semi-Finals Court Room 2: 

AIL Mohali v. GNLU 

12:40 PM: First speaker begins from Claimants. President of the Tribunal bombards her with questions within the first 5 minutes itself and she maintains her cool throughout. The First Speaker continues to be asked fundamental questions of law by the Bench and she does not seem to be able to answer them to the Bench's satisfaction.

The First Speaker is done with more than half of her submission but still hasn't finished her first issue. She continues to be grilled throughout but she maintains her cool and pace.

1:00 PM The First Speaker seems to be confused about ratione materiae and ratione personae jurisdiction. She seems to understand the concepts mutually satisfying each other, forgetting the necessary nationality precondition in case of ratione personae jurisdiction.

1:20 PM:The Claimants have finally moved to their second speaker. She begins slowly and attempts to break down her submissions to address all questions of the Bench. She seems to be thoroughly confused with the factual requirement to satisfy expropriation.

At this point of time, the Bench seems to be speaking more than the Counsel herself. She seems to be missunderstanding the Bench's questions, requiring the bench to continuously repeat and re-frame their questions. Stay Calm, Speaker 2!

 Our Finalists are:

1. ILS Pune


This is Sparta. 

ILS(Claimants) v. GNLU(Respondent)

 5:00 PM: The Claimants have just begun their submissions. The First Speaker appears to start off on a confident note, attempting to prove that Tribunal has jurisdiction and that it's patent applications constituted a 'covered investment' under the  BIT. 

5.15 PM: The beginner's luck doesn't appear to have lasted for more than 10 minutes for the Claimants. Prof. Basheer (also the Competition Problem's Author) and Justice Sri Krishna don't appear to be entirely convinced by the Claimant's arguments. 

5.28: A light moment as first counsel for the Claimant requests multiple extensions of 5, 3, and 1 minutes(s) despite his request being politely declinied by the Bench. 

5:31: The second counsel for the Claimants appears to make an impressive start to issues concering creeping expropriation by the Host State. 

5.45: Slip of tounge? The second counsel for the Claimants appears to argue for the opposite party briefly (very briefly, but sufficiently enough for this live blogger to take notice) - although she moves on before the Bench alerts her. 

5:50: "I stand corrected!: The claimants make no apologies for attempting to be creative in a moot. The judges make remarks suggesting that the second counsel may not be entriely correct on a position of law - the speaker ackonowledge's the bench but makes a seamless transiton into her next argument. 

6.10: "It was a pleasure!": Claimants end on a positive note despite not being able to cover all issues anticipated by the competition case. 

6:40 The second speaker from the Respondent is calm and poised. She is asked questions regarding compulsory licensing and the bench doesnt seem to accept her arguments. However, she doesnt appear frazzled and is able to remain calm throughout. Good Going, Speaker 2!

6:32 The speaker is asked by the bench to argue simply and not make her arguments so convulated. She attempts to answer his direct question on why compulsary lincese is not violative of BIT by stating that there were in public interest. 

This liveblogger might not be "LIVE" anymore. Will be back for who wins. Stay tuned. 


The WINNERS ARE...*drumroll* ----The Claimants- ILS Pune. 

Runners up team: GNLU

Best Speaker: Akila, ILS Pune 

Runners Up Speaker: Arpit, NLU Delhi 

2nd Runners up Speaker:Shashank, Christ College 

Best Memo: NLU, Delhi 

Runners Up Memo: NLU, Odisha 

2nd Runners up Memo: RGNUL Patiala 

 Winners get Ipads and Signed copies of Overlapping Intellectual Property rights by Wilkoff and Shamnad Basheer, signed by Mr. Shamnad Basheer, who is also (as you all know) the author of this year's competition case. 

The Best Speaker also gets an internship with Nishith Desai & Associates. 

Runners up get Kindle Voyager and copies of Whish and Bailey's Competition Law. Other winners get copies of Bently and Sherman's Intellectual Property Law and Kindle paperwhite. 

We would like to thank all the teams for their partcipation and hope they, above all, they had fun!


See you next year! 





No comments yet: share your views