6TH SYMBIOSIS B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL National …...02 6TH SYMBIOSIS—B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 5 A practical approach is one of the best ways to

1

Organised ByOrganised By::

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNESYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

666THTHTH

SYMBIOSIS SYMBIOSIS SYMBIOSIS --- B. KRISHNAB. KRISHNAB. KRISHNA MEMORIALMEMORIALMEMORIAL National IPR Moot Court National IPR Moot Court National IPR Moot Court

Competition, 2014Competition, 2014Competition, 2014

777---9 February, 20149 February, 20149 February, 2014

In Association WithIn Association With::

KRISHNA & SAURASTRI ASSOCIATES, MUMBAIKRISHNA & SAURASTRI ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

2

Table Of Contents

Message From The Chancellor………………………… 01

Message From The Principal Director……………….. 02

Message From The Director……………………………. 03

Message From The Associate Partners……………..… 04

Mooting at Symbiosis…………….……………………… 05

Invitation………………………………..………………… 08

Previous Year’s Winners………………...……………… 09

Moot Problem……………………………..……………… 10

Rules and Regulations………………………..…...…….. 20

Schedule…………………………………...….………..….. 30

Registration Form…………………………..…………… 31

Travel Plan…………………………...………………….... 32

6TH SYMBIOSIS—B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014

3

The World today does not comprise of

nations and states working and pro-

gressing in solitude. With the advent of

technology, boundaries have become in

effect meaningless, with solidarity be-

coming a prime agenda for all pioneers

and incidents in one part of the globe

affecting all. We, at Symbiosis Law

School, Pune strive to create legal pro-

fessionals that understand these devel-

opments as well as answer the legal di-

lemma they pose and who can meet the

demands of our great nation. We believe

in developing holistic skill sets in all

our students so that they are effectively

prepared to take on any practical chal-

lenge posed to them. Symbiosis is now

one of India's leading educational insti-

tutions guaranteeing excellence in edu-

cation to students from India and across

the world for more than thirty years.

Symbiosis Law School, Pune was

established in 1977 with the objective

of being the global leader of excellence

in legal education through a combina-

tion of passion and compassion and

moulding students into lawyers capable

of affecting social, economic and politi-

cal development by fortifying the legal

system. This goal continues has become

extremely pertinent to today’s scenario,

given the pace at which the law is

evolving.

I take this opportunity to invite

your esteemed institution to be part of

our Moot Court Competition and take

away the same values and skills that

transform lawyers into agents of social

change.

Padma Bhushan Dr. S.B. Mujumdar

President and Founder Director, Symbiosis

Chancellor,

Symbiosis International University

______________________

Message From The

Chancellor

______________________

01 6TH SYMBIOSIS—B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014

4

The legal profession today is an

ever-evolving field. The key to suc-

cess is “Care, Courage and Compe-

tence”. A lawyer needs to have com-

plete knowledge of the law and yet al-

ways be ready to answer those ques-

tions that the legal fraternity has never

faced before. It is also extremely es-

sential for lawyers to understand the

complete spectrum of legal education

and be aware of its supplements from

domestic laws to global laws compli-

mented with the knowledge of mar-

kets. We at Symbiosis strive to create

such lawyers that will be on the fore-

front of legal change.

At Symbiosis Law School, Pune,

we build on the tradition of

knowledge acquiring and knowledge

sharing. Additionally, our students fur-

ther develop through extra-curricular

and co-curricular activities that devel-

op the student's practical interest in

law. Also, to promote the practicality

of Law School training, we insist on

activities such as moot courts and de-

bating and to develop their drafting

and pleading skills.

This moot court competition is

yet another endeavour to expose our

students to better levels of competition

and talent that is abound across the na-

tion.

I wish the students best of luck.

Dr. Vidya Yeravdekar

Principal Director, Symbiosis Society

________________________

Message From The

Principal Director

________________________


5

A practical approach is one of the best ways to reiterate the teachings of classroom in a hands-on environment. Mooting is one such exercise in clini-cal legal education which prepares stu-dents for lawyering in such a practical manner. At SLS Pune, every student undertakes a minimum of five moots in his/her life cycle in the form of compulsory assignments or internal eliminations.

Moot Court Association (MCA) of SLS Pune has acted as a catalytic and facilitating body in such activities. SLS Pune ranked amongst the Top 5 Colleges of India in the Mooting Premier League hosted by Legally In-dia. Furthermore, we were the only In-dian college to reach Quarter Final Rounds in the Willem C. Vis (East) In-ternational Arbitration Competition 2013, where our speakers also received ‘Honorable Mentions’.

For last few years, MCA and SLS Pune have put in such perfect work that Krishna Memorial Moot fell into their share. The competition mir-rors a strong partnership between the practitioners and judges as guiding stars, alumni as panelists, students as organizers and the forum cementing all is by the institute- a true symbiosis of stakeholders.

Moot problem here is unique and caters to all levels of learners/mooters in the stewardship of ex-Philip Jessup competitor, Advocate Muralidharan. As host, SLS Pune, never compete, to avoid undue favor that may accrue to organizers. Our milestones and records captured in this brochure must con-vince the reader that the competition is set to top up its impact.

Needless to repeat, such mission and spirit of Symbiosis are here to deepen.

Wishing the moot great success and welcoming your team to our warm hospitality and flawless event.

Dr. Shashikala Gurpur,

Fullbright Scholar

Director, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Dean, Faculty of Law, SIU

Formerly, Member, Law Commission of India

________________________

Message From The

Director

________________________


6

At the outset, our firm is immensely grat-

ified to know that the support of the legal

students’ and professional fraternity has

made our B. Krishna IPR Moot Court

Competition, an eagerly awaited and im-

portant Moot in India.

This year also, the Moot Court As-

sociation of Symbiosis Law School has

decided to hold the Moot Court Competi-

tion in their premises during February,

2014. We invite the participation of your

esteemed school.

This year, the Moot Court problem

involves the adjudication of the following

issues:

The obligation of having to se-

cure permission from Na-

tional Biodiversity Authority.

Competency of an Arbitrator to

pronounce on the validity of pa-

tent, as patent is a right in rem.

Employment of restrictive busi-

ness practices in a Patent Li-

censing Agreement.

Role of private Mediation and

Arbitration Societies in resolv-

ing International Commercial

Arbitration.

We solicit your participation and

Symbiosis Law School will ensure that

your stay is enriching, comfortable and

enjoyable.

Yours sincerely,

R. Muralidharan

R. Muralidharan

Advocate, Law Lecturer, Mediator,

Patents and Trademark Attorney,

Head, Krishna and Saurastri Associates,

Bengaluru

________________________

Message From The

Associate Partners

________________________


7

Theoretical knowledge of the law is

not enough to mould students into

successful advocates. For practical

and applied knowledge of the law,

moot courts often step in as a useful

tool. Here, at Symbiosis Law School,

Pune, we understand this need to en-

courage mooting and aspire to create

such a healthy pool of young lawyers.

Mooting not only forms an integral

part of our law program but is also the

most popular and competitive extra-

curricular activity. The organization

and co-ordination of all mooting activ-

ities is carried out by the Symbiosis

Law School Moot Court Association,

popularly known as the MCA.

From the student’s first year it-

self, mooting is integrated into the

curriculum, as part of the internal as-

sessment, thus introducing the stu-

dents to the World of Mooting early

into their law school career. Further,

students are encouraged to take part in

mooting and allied mooting activities

and by way of internal eliminations

subsequently represent the college in

numerous moot courts, mock trials,

client counseling and negotiation

competitions and the like. Students

who represent the college in the na-

tional and international mooting cir-

cuit are trained and assisted by not on-

ly the MCA members, but also by ex-

perts in the various fields of law..

Workshops and orientations are con-

ducted regularly to ensure all students

are well aware of the method and art

of mooting so that they may perform

their best in the Competitions. Memo-

rials are reviewed and mock pleadings

are conducted by a panel of both fac-

ulty and senior mooters to ensure that

every team that represents the college

has been given optimum training. In

addition to The Surana & Surana In-

ternational Technology Law Moot

Court Competition, the MCA also an-

nually organizes the B. Krishna Me-

morial National IPR Moot Court

Competition.

_____________________________________________________________________

Mooting at Symbiosis ———————————————————–--——————————————-


8

The dedication and enthusiasm towards mooting in our college is by way of our

representation in external moot court competitions. In the past, our students have rep-

resented and won laurels in prestigious competitions such as Annual Willem C Vis In-

ternational Commercial Arbitration Moot (Hong Kong Rounds), The 24th KLA Na-

tional Moot Court Competition, Amity International Law Moot, Amity International

Economic Law Moot, SVKM Trial Advocacy Moot, 12th Amity IPR Moot, SPIL

Treaty Appreciation and Judgement Writing amongst various others.


9

The Moot Court Association at Symbiosis Law School:

Dr. Shashikala Gurpur Director, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Dr. Shashikant Hajare Faculty-in- Charge, Moot Court Association

Prof. Shirish Kulkarni Asst. Faculty-in-Charge,Moot Court Association

Varun Tripathi (IV Year) Convenor, Moot Court Association

Nithin Patil P (IV Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Dhruv Joshi (III Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Gayatri Pradhan (III Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Neeati Narayan (III Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Pranav Menon (III Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Somesh Srivastava (III Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Chandralekha A (II Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Prakhar Tripathi (II Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Tanvi Khare (II Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Vadeendra Joshi (II Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association

Priyanka Arora (II Year) Student Member, Moot Court Association


10

____________________________________________________________________

Invitation —————————————————————————————–-————-

Date: 6-11-2013

To,

The Director/Principal/Head of Department

Subject: Invitation to Participate in the 6th Symbiosis-B. Krishna Memorial National In-

tellectual Property Rights Moot Court Competition, 2014

Dear Sir/ Madam,

It gives me immense pleasure to announce that Symbiosis Law School, Pune in association

with Krishna and Saurastri Associates, Patent and Trademark Attorneys, Mumbai is organizing

the 6th Symbiosis-B.Krishna Memorial National Intellectual Property Rights Moot Court

Competition, from 7th to 9th February, 2014 at Pune. As part of our continued endeavors to

facilitate the learning process for the student community, and also as a responsibility of being a

foremost law school of the country, we have been organizing various events of National and

International significance/importance to bring out the diverse manifestations of a student’s per-

sonality. This also includes providing mooting opportunities to the students for honing their

skills which are a pre requisite to entering the legal profession.

The sixth edition of the IPR Moot this year is another such attempt in that series. In the last few

years the Symbiosis B. Krishna Memorial Moot has created a niche for itself of being one of

the best Moot Court Competitions in the country particularly focusing on Patent Laws of the

IPR regime.

We would like to invite your prestigious institute to participate in the competition. We would

be glad to take care of the accommodation and local hospitality of the participants for the dura-

tion of the Moot Court Competition. We look forward to your positive response and participa-

tion.

Thanking You

Yours Sincerely,

Dr. Shashikala Gurpur, Fulbright Scholar

Director, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Dean, Faculty of Law, SIU


11

_____________________________________________________________________

Previous Year’s Winners ——————————————————————————————————-

Winners: National Law University, Delhi

Runners-Up: National Law University, Jodhpur

Best Memorial: National Law Institute University, Bhopal

Best Advocate: Anshul Goel; Campus Law Center, Delhi

Second Best Advocate: Anju Srinivasan; ILS, Pune

(L-R) : Dr. Shashikala Gurpur, Director, Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Dr. S.S. Phal-

sankar Joshi, Jt. Director, Maharashtra Judicial Academy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra

Bhat, Judge Delhi High Court, R. Muralidharan, Head, Krishna and Saurastri Associates,

Bengaluru, Manish Saurastri, Partner, Krishna & Saurastri Associates, Patent and Trade-

mark Attorneys, Mumbai with National Law University, Delhi, Winners 2013.

5TH B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2013

09 6TH SYMBIOSIS—B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 6TH SYMBIOSIS—B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014

12

_____________________________________________________________________

Moot Problem —————————————————————————————–—————

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF RASMAD,

REPUBLIC OF BHARANESIA

C.M.A. No. 1440/2014

BETWEEN

1. Ragavedha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Having its Registered Office at:

181/A, West Car Street,

Baramchid District, Dravida Nadu,

Republic of Bharanesia ……Petitioner

AND

1. Dr. Naidu Laboratories Inc.,

Having its Registered Office at:

Naidu Town, State of Utopia,

Federation of Imperia

2. Nepu International Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation Centre

Nandhi Durg Road, Malgudi Town,

Saurashtra State, Bharanesia …..Respondents

____________________________

a) This hypothetical problem is conceived and prepared by Mr. Sunil B. Krishna and Mr. R. Murali-

dharan.

b) The authors assert the moral right to be identified as the creators of this fictional legal educational

tool. The authors would encourage Law Schools to use the Problem either as study material or instruc-

tional tool after due acknowledgement to the authors.

c) To the knowledge of the authors, there is no similar proceeding pending anywhere in the world. The

problem is purely hypothetical and fictional. Any similarity with situations or names is purely coinci-

dental and unintentional.


13

1. Republic of Bharanesia is a Sovereign Nation located in the South Asian Region. Its

Constitution, Laws, Institutions and Social Ethos are substantially similar to that of the

Union of India. The Federation of Imperia is a Sovereign Nation whose constitution, laws

and social ethos are substantially similar to that of the United States of America.

2. Ragavedha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as REPL), a Bharanesian

Private Limited Company, evolved a Fungal/Bacterial hybrid which in many ways, pro-

vided an important substitute for a fungus called yartsa gunbu, which is often referred to

as ‘Tibetan Gold’ due to its substantial value in the traditional herbal medicine market.

Yartsa gunbu is a stroma evolving from an underground dwelling larva of a ghost moth

infected by spores from fungus called Ophiocordyceps sinensis. The process evolved by

REPL involved:

a. Creating a climate controlled, artificially cooled and depressurized green house;

b. Using the traditional Tibetan Plants, animal dung residue, bacterium and fun-

gus endemic to Tibet;

c. Inducing a short intensively hot, dry days and long cold nights, with a humidity

level of 20-25% in the green house; and

d. Employing mutation-inducing herbal extracts which are endemic to Bharanesia

REPL was able to produce a new species, having different morphological charac-

teristics from the original Tibetan Fungus Larvae combination. More information

on the original plant is available in the August 2013 issue of the National Geo-

graphic Magazine. The new variety had even more beneficial properties or it was

widely perceived to be so by the East and South East Asian markets and became a

multibillion industry (4-6 Billion USD, a year.)

3. REPL had a focused policy on IPR acquisition, commercialization, monetization and

aggressive enforcement of IPR. It applied extensively for product and process patents,

Designs, and Trade Mark registrations in respect of the green house auxiliary products

such as (a) vacuum suction pumps to achieve specific parameters, (b) Artificial earth that

closely resembled the original Tibetan soil, replete with the local vegetation and Yak

dung manure, (c) Humidifiers, (d) the Process to improve and nurture the length of Fun-

gus/Larvae combination, (e) Methods, and devices, to induce mutations, etc. These pa-

tents were first applied for, in Bharanesia, between 2004-2009.( The first applications for

the patents in Bharanesia were made in 2004-2009.) The company duly followed with


14

PCT applications and started receiving Grant Certificates from European Patent Office,

North America, China, Japan and South East Asia. It also prepared elaborate user and

service manual in respect of each of the limits of the green house and obtained copyright

registrations as well. The company, in its wisdom, thought it would keep the composition

of herbal extracts that would induce mutations, a secret. The company felt that since the

patent application would involve full disclosure of the herbal extracts and their combina-

tions. These in industrial terms are very simple to replicate. This would facilitate easier

copying which would be difficult to detect and enforce. Hence, without securing any pa-

tent registration (for the herbal extracts)and after subjecting the employees, subcontrac-

tors and vendors to strict confidentiality and secrecy obligations, the company decided to

market the herbal extract as a stand-alone product to induce beneficial mutations in the

plants. In addition to the Patent, Trade Mark, Design and Copyright registration, REPL

obtained registration under the Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Protection Act.

4. Dr. Naidu Laboratories Inc., (hereinafter referred to as NLI) though an Imperian

listed company, was owned and controlled by Dr. Naidu Laboratories Ltd., a hugely suc-

cessful generic drug company based in Bharanesia. Though REPL had quality human

resources pursuing cutting edge research in Biotechnology, it did not have the financial

resources to scale the commercial invention globally. Nor did it have a global marketing

network. NLI invested substantial money, time and effort and within three years of intro-

duction, the portable green houses that just occupy 200sq.ft on the terrace, became a

roaring commercial success in South East Asian markets

5. In 2007, REPL and NLI entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with the following sa-

lient features:

a. REPL granted a non-exclusive royalty bearing, irrevocable perpetual licence in

favour of NLI.

b. The royalty payable per patent shall not exceed 4% of the unit cost, ex factory

price, minus taxes.

c. The total cumulative royalty, when there is use of multiple patents, shall not ex-

ceed 10% of the unit price, ex factory price minus taxes.

d. REPL shall make available periodically the proprietary mutation- inducing

herbal extracts and ensure a year of supply of extracts (with two years of shelf life)

to the NLI on mutually agreed prices. NLI should buy these extracts only from

REPL.


15

e. NLI undertook not to do any reverse engineering of the composition and the na-

ture of the Plant Nutrient Supplements supplied by Ragavedha Enterprises Pvt.

Ltd.

f. In the event there being any improvement IPR, the accruing IPR should be noti-

fied to the Technology Recipient to REPL and the later will have right to obtain

IPR registrations at their discretion after paying a consideration of $ 1000 a patent

or other IPR.

g. The proper law of contract shall be Bharanesian and Imperian Law. In case of

conflict, the system of law that favours the rights of IP owners and foreign investors

will prevail.

h. The Agreement was executed in Bharanesia.

i. The contract provided that Mediation and Arbitration shall, in that order, be the

only method of dispute settlement.

j. The contract expressly permitted the Mediator to become the Arbitrator, in the

event of failure of Mediation.

k. The contract identified Mr. Sampath Ammaji Mohan as the Mediator/

Arbitrator.l. The contract provided that the seat of Arbitration shall be Singapore

and language of Arbitration shall be English.

m. To ensure commercial secrecy and to prevent disclosure of valuable commercial

information, the Arbitrator was empowered to frame his award, based on his find-

ings on the respective issues, without having to provide a reason for findings.

n. Both the parties were specifically obliged to articulate the other party about the

existence of a commercial/arbitrable dispute and await its remedial within a month

before initiating Mediation/Arbitration.

o. The Mediator/Arbitrator was permitted to use the principles of justice, equity

and good conscience in resolving the dispute and this being an International

Commercial Contract, to follow the Rules of the International Permanent

Court of Arbitration.

p. The Arbitrator was also empowered to grant interim orders.

6. By 2009-10, the Green House grown exotic plants/animals became a big success

in South and East Asian markets. Soon, these products were found growing on Eu-

rope and North American terraces as well. The collaboration between REPL and


16

NLI was hailed as a classic case of successful collaboration of high tech research between

unrelated commercial entities and even became a subject matter of Technology Transfer/

IPR Monetization Case Study in reputed business schools.

7. Sometime in the year 2009, Dr. Naidu Laboratories Inc.’s Patent Department, while

conducting due diligence, realized that the Green House Kit Patent to grow other exotic

plants/animals, makes no mention of the proprietary secretive herbal extract, its composi-

tion and ingredients. The new plant/animal variety which is the real product or which the

green house is meant, could not and did not grow without these chemicals.

Some countries also expressed reservations about importing plant nutritional supple-

ments/stabilized herbal extracts from Bharanesian facilities, which, of late, has been at-

tracting adverse publicity because of contamination. Hence, NLI wanted to centralize

their production either in Europe or in America. They communicated this to REPL, who

refused the suggestion.

8. While storing and distributing the mutation inducing herbal extracts, NLI faced th

problem of deterioration of the materials. To come up with solutions to ensure longe shelf

life without deterioration, NLI wanted to know more about the herbal extracts’ composi-

tion. Grudgingly, REPL allowed them to conduct further research on the herbal extract

formulation. While doing reverse engineering of the composition, NLI found that REPL

had used masking agents (herbal extracts) which were responsible for the deterioration of

the samples. Masking agents were intended to prevent reverse Engineering to find the na-

ture and composition of extracts. Hence, further research enabled NLI to come up with

an improved composition of the mutation inducing extracts. This, they chose to keep se-

cret. Gradually, they decided to reduce the quantum of herbal extract composition that

they imported from REPL.

9. Because of this, a dispute arose between the REPL and NLI. REPL contended that:

a. Stopping or reducing the quantum of order in respect of mutation inducing herb-

al extracts is a fundamental breach of the contract;

b. Coming up with a new improved herbal extract composition than what was sup-

plied by them, is a violation of the condition to do improvement research;

c. Not disclosing the ingredients of the improved mutation inducing extract is a vio-

lation of the spirit of the Technology Transfer Agreement;


17

d. As a recipient of technology, NLI ought to have informed Ragavedha Enterprises

Pvt. Ltd. about the improvement to the original extracts, which, by contract, be-

longs to REPL; therefore NLI should duly assign the improved version of the herb-

al extracts to them.

10. In response, NLI contended that:

a. The Licence Agreement essentially pertains to the manufacture and sale of im-

proved Green House kit in respect of which they have an irrevocable an perpetual

license.

b. Mutation inducing herbal extract is not disclosed in the Green House Kit

Patent and hence, developing a better herbal extract is independent of the original

licence for patent.

c. REPL, at no point of time, disclosed the composition of the extract and the meth-

od of preparing it. In any case, this is a statutorily unprotected trade secret. Com-

petitors have a right to do reverse engineering and if they find out the trade secret,

they have a right to use it.

d. Since no technology relating to the herbal extract was received by NLI, any im-

provement IP generated by NLI does not fall within the scope of the Patent Licens-

ing Agreement.

e. Asking the licencee to buy the extracts, always from REPL, is an anticompetitive

practice having an appreciably adverse effect on competition which is illegal.

11. The Parties conclude that there is a dispute. REPL wanted to rescind the Patent

Licensing Agreement and have the freedom to choose different licencees and the demand-

ed that NLI stop using the patents. On the other hand, NLI contended that the have a per-

petual irrevocable licence in respect of the Green House Kit and the best that REPL can

hope for is royalties on sale price of the green house units.

12. REPL initiated a Mediation and Arbitration proceeding. Mr. Sampath Ammaji

Mohan agreed to officiate as the Mediator/Arbitrator. Mr. Sampath Ammaji Mohan was

one of the leading IP Attorneys with a strong background in Constitutional Law and In-

ternational Commercial Laws. He conducted some of the leading Patent and Trade Mark

infringement cases in India. He retired from active litigation and professional practice

and focused on Alternative Dispute Resolution and peaceful conflict management. He was


18

one of the most sought after speakers in International Conferences and IPR workshops

and widely regarded as an expert on Bharanesian Law. He was also registered Patent

Agent.

13. To provide secretarial support, Mr. Sampath Ammaji Mohan had directed the

Respondent No.2, a private, non-profit, limited company, to provide the logistic support

for concluding the arbitration in five working days. During October 2010, the Respondent

No.2 collected the pleadings of the respective parties, framed the issues, facilitated discov-

ery and inspection of the documents relied on by the respective parties.

NLI urged invalidity on the following grounds:

a. Insufficient disclosure: NLI contended that the original patent for the Green

House kit made no disclosure about the mutation inducing chemical, the kit could

not produce the desired organism. Hence, they contended that REPL has not com-

plied with the best mode requirement.

b. Patentee is guilty of inequitable conduct and Patent must be declared as unen-

forceable. Employing masking agents to prevent others from conducting reverse en-

gineering is violative of duty of candour that the Patentee owes to the society at

large.

c. Not disclosing the composition of the mutation inducing extracts, and insisting

that NLI buy the extracts from REPL is an anti-competitive practice.

Since the parties have global monopoly in respect of the product, any agreement be-

tween them per se, illegal and hence, unenforceable.

d. Insisting that technology recipient have a tie in obligation; preventing them from

doing adaptive and improving research and demanding the improvement IPR with-

out adequate consideration, is again, an anticompetitive practice.

14. The Mediator commenced the Mediation proceedings. First three days were spent on:

a. Opening Statement by the Mediator

b. Private Session with parties

c. Public Session with parties and their counsels

d. Conflict identification and resolution of conflict options.


19

Thereafter, the Mediator called again for private session with the parties with a suggestion

for resolving the dispute. During the session, it was apparent that the parties were not

ready for a mediated settlement. Hence, the Mediator converted the Mediation into Arbi-

tration. The next day, REPL sought interim relief in the nature of an injunction that would

restrain NLI from using the licensed patents. The Arbitrator felt that since he intended to

conclude the proceedings within a week’s time, interim relief may not be strictly necessary

and went on to hear the arguments of the parties. The Issues framed by the Arbitrator are

as under:

a. Whether the REPL Patents on the Green House Kit satisfy the patentability crite-

ria of novelty, utility, Non-Obviousness and Statutory Subject Matter?

b. Whether the Patentee has complied with the best mode requirement?

c. Whether the REPL patents on improved Green House Kit are valid and enforcea-

ble?

d. Whether the Patentee is guilty of inequitable conduct so as to render the patent

unenforceable?

e. Whether the patentee is guilty of anti-competitive practices in Patent Licensing

Agreement by prohibiting further research on patented technology and by claiming

automatic ownership of improvement IPR?

f. Whether the NLI is duty bound to disclose to REPL the improvement IPR and to

convey the ownership thereof to the REPL?

g. Whether the technology of the mutation inducing herbal extracts is violative of the

letter and spirit of the Bharanesian Biodiversity Act?

h. Whether the NLI can continue to use the patented technology even after funda-

mental breach of the agreement, as alleged by the claimant?

15. In between, the Respondent No.2 had independently commissioned two independent

Agro and Biotech Laboratories to give an opinion as to whether the improved Green House

Kit will grow exotic plants as alleged, without the use of the mutation inducing extracts.

Both of the referred Experts had opined that though it will serve as a more expensive green

house, it will not be able to produce the desired improved varieties without using the ex-

tracts. Hence, the green house, per se, does not produce what has been projected in the

specification of the patent.


20

16. Within 15 days of Mediation and Arbitration, the Arbitrator pronounced his findings

on the issues as under:

a. The Patent meets the criteria of Novelty, Utility, non-obviousness and

Statutory Subject Matter test;

b. In view of the findings of the laboratories commissioned by the Respondent

No.2, the patentee has not complied with the best mode requirement.

c. Patent is not valid and unenforceable as the claims do not produce what was

promised in the specification without employing the herbal extracts.

d. Employment of practices prohibited by the Competition Laws is a matter that an

Arbitrator cannot look into until the Competition Commission declares it illegal;

an Arbitrator is bound to hold that such restrictions are reasonable.

e. Though the Bharanesian Biodiversity Act insists on prior permission for the use

of biological material for research, corresponding prohibition does not exist under

the laws of the Federation of Imperia. Since these extracts are only used as interme-

diate chemicals in a process and their genetic material per se has not been directly

used in the invention, there is no need to obtain permission from the Bharanesian

Biodiversity Authority. Unless the NLI applies for a patent in Bharanesia, in re-

spect of an improved composition, it is not bound to apply for such permission.

f. Since the licence is perpetual and irrevocable, there cannot be a restraint order in

respect of future use. However, since only the Green House kit patent is revoked

and other patents of the same family were not challenged or revoked, NLI can con-

tinue the use of technology after paying 50% of the royalty paid in past.

g. NLI should renegotiate with REPL relating to the ownership of the improved

mutation inducing herbal extracts.

17. In the question of ownership of improvement IPR, the Arbitrator found that since

REPL only supplied the NLI the finished product, namely extract, and transferred no

technology, in respect of the improved herbal extracts same, they are not bound to share

ownership. If and when they apply for patent, they should comply with the Bharanesian

laws.


21

18. REPL felt aggrieved with the Award and initiated proceedings before the High Court

of Rasmad to declare the award null and void on the following grounds:

a. Under Bharanesian Law, only the Patent Office, Bharanesian Intellectual Prop-

erty Appellate Board (BIPAB) and High Courts can pronounce on the validity of

the Patent. Arbitrators in Bharanesia cannot pronounce on the validity of patent as

it would amount to exercising statutory powers.

b. The Arbitrator committed a grave procedural irregularity in availing the ser-

vices of Respondent No.2, who commissioned independent experts to find whether

the process patent can be replicated, as promised

c. The scheme of Mediation as prevalent in Bharanesia does not permit any profes-

sional to double up as the Arbitrator as well as the Mediator.

d. Findings of Arbitrator on the improvement IPR generated on the mutation in-

ducing herbal extracts are violative of the letter and spirit of the Patent Licensing

Agreement.

The matter is posted for final disposal.


22

_____________________________________________________________________

Rules and Regulations —————————————————————————————–—————

Dates of the Competition: 7th to 9th February, 2014

1. Definitions for the purpose of Moot Court Competitions:

The following terms have the corresponding meanings:

1.1 "Administrators" means the Moot Court Association (MCA) of Symbiosis Law School,

Pune (SLS, Pune) and/or any other person(s) appointed to administer the Competition by

the said Association.

1.2 "Competition" means the 6th Symbiosis-B. Krishna Memorial National IPR Moot Court

Competition, 2014.

1.3 "Competition Problem" means the official problem of the Competition as supplemented

or corrected by any official Problem Clarifications or corrections.

1.4 “Judge” means any person appointed to evaluate a Participant’s Memorial or Oral Pleadings.

1.5 "Moot Court Chairperson" means the Professor-in-Charge of the Moot Court Association of

Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

1.6 "Memorial" means the written pleadings of each participating college, written and submitted

pursuant to these Rules.

1.7 "Penalties" means Raw Points deducted for any Rule violation pursuant to Rule 8.

1.8 "Problem Clarifications" means the official clarifications of the Competition Problem and

of these Rules, as published by the administrators.

1.9 "Rules" means these Official Rules of the Competition and any applicable Supplementary

Rules.

1.10 "Participants" mean student representatives from eligible colleges recognized by the Admin-

istrators which compete in the Competition, pursuant to Rule 3.0.

2. General Information:

2.1 Symbiosis Law School, Pune in association with Krishna and Saurastri Associates (Patent and

Trade Mark Attorneys), having offices at Ahmadabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Pune and New

Delhi, will be holding the Sixth B. Krishna Memorial


23

National IPR Moot Court Competition focusing on domestic and international legal is-

sues relating to Intellectual Property Law.

2.2 The Moot Court Competition will be held at Symbiosis Law School, Pune on 7th, 8th and

9th February, 2014.

3. Eligibility:

3.1 This competition is open to all students pursuing Law Undergraduate (LL.B) Courses (3

Year or 5 Year) in any Law College/Department of Law in India, who have not complet-

ed 26 years as on 1st March, 2013.

4. Registration:

4.1 The maximum number of participants per team will be restricted to three out of which

two will be Speakers and one will be Researcher. A team may also consist of only two

Speakers.

4.2 Each of the members of the participating team shall duly complete the Registration form

attached herein and send it to the Organisers at the stipulated address as mentioned under

Rule 5.4 along with the Registration Fee.

4.3 The date for teams to provisionally register their institutions for the competition is 4 th

January, 2014.

4.4 The registration of the participants must be completed on or before 11th January, 2014.

4.5 The participation will be restricted to the first thirty two teams who confirm their par-

ticipation on first come first served basis. There will be a registration fee of Rs. 2,000/-

per team.

4.6 The registration fee is payable by means of a demand draft drawn in favour of “The Di-

rector, Symbiosis Law School, Pune” payable at Pune,

4.7 No change in the names of the participants shall be permitted after the receipt of the Reg-

istration Form, except at the sole discretion of the Organisers.

4.8 Participants can provisionally register their institution via email at:

[email protected].


mailto:[email protected]

24

4.9 Subsequent to the acknowledgment by the Administrators the teams are directed to send in the

hard copy of the registration form along with the demand draft.

4.10 The teams are informed that the registration fee is non-refundable in nature once paid.

4.11 The envelope containing the Draft and Form sent to the institution should mention

“Registration for 6th Symbiosis-B. Krishna National IPR Moot Court Competition,

2014”.

5. Memorials:

5.1 All participating teams must submit a soft copy of their memorials for both the sides on or be-

fore 18th January, 2014 by 9 pm (IST).

5.2 Teams must also send seven (7) hard copies of the memorials by 22nd January, 2014 [Totally

fourteen (14) copies.] Hard Copies must reach Symbiosis Law School. Pune by the 22nd Janu-

ary, 2014.

5.3 The soft copies of the memorials must be emailed to <[email protected]> with the

subject “Memorial Submission by Team Code ____ for 6th Symbiosis-B. Krishna Moot Court

Competition”.

5.4 The hard copies of the memorials must be addressed to:

Dr. Shashikant Hajare,

Faculty In-Charge,

Moot Court Association,

Symbiosis Law School,

Senapati Bapat Road,

Pune -411004.

5.5 Hard copy of Memorials submitted after the stipulated time will attract a penalty of two mark for

each day of delay. However, the penalty may be condoned in lieu of advance notification, sub-

ject to the approval of the, Administrator Moot Court Association, Symbiosis Law School, Pu-

ne.

5.6 In the possibility of any team failing to submit the memorials by 25th January, 2014 the Admin-

istrator reserves the right to cancel the participation of the team failing to submit the Memori-

al and the registration fee of Rs.2000/- will be forfeited in the event of non submission of

the memorials within time as stipulated.



25

5.7 The memorials must contain the following:

Cover Page;

Table of contents;

Index of Authorities;

Statement of Jurisdiction;

Statement of Facts;

Issues Presented;

Summary of Arguments;

Arguments in detail;

Prayer.

5.8 Each Memorial should not exceed more than 40 A4 pages. The "Arguments in Detail" and

the "Prayer" should not exceed more than 25 A4 pages.

5.9 The memorials should not contain the name of the participating college in any part thereof.

Also, no logo or any mark of identification may be made in the memorials. Non compli-

ance with this rule will lead to immediate disqualification

5.10. The Memorial shall be formatted according to the following specifications:

i. Typed on standard A4 size page

ii. Font type: Times New Roman

iii. Font size for body text: 12; the text of the written submission must have one and a half

spacing (1.5 spacing). Font size for the cover page may be 14 or 12.

iv. Font size for footnotes: 10; text of footnotes should be single-spaced (1.0)

v. Margin: 1 inch margin on each side of the A4 size page

vi. Quotations of sources outside of the memorial of fifty words or more in any part of the

memorial shall be block quoted and must be in italics.

vii. The participating teams should include Header and Footer in their memorials to the ef-

fect that the Header should mention the full name of competition and the Footer should

mention the side on whose behalf memorial is submitted.

viii. The teams should mention their Team Codes on the Top Right corner of their Cover

Page in their written submissions.

5.11. The footnotes must follow the 19th Bluebook format of citation (latest)

5.12. The Memorial must be spiral bound.


26

5.13. The Cover Page of the Memorial must have the following colour scheme:

Blue: Applicant Cover Page

Red: Respondent Cover Page

5.14. The Memorial must not contain any Annexure/Photographs/Sketches/ Exhibits/

Affidavits etc.

5.15 The memorial will carry a maximum of Hundred (100) marks and there will be a

separate prize for Best Memorial. As the memorials shall be utilized to the ex-

tent of 30% (as mentioned in Rule 7.3 below), they will be scaled to 150 marks

for facilitating calculation and clarity.

5.17 Parameters for judging the memorials are:

Knowledge of Law and Extent of Research

Proper and Articulate Analysis, Clarity and Organization

Knowledge of Facts

Evidence of Original Thought

Grammar and Style

Correct Format and Citation

Clear, concise and unambiguous writing style

Integration of facts into legal argument

Understanding of strengths and weaknesses of case

Discussion of viable alternative arguments

Understanding of strengths and weaknesses of case

Discussion of viable alternative arguments

Ability to distinguish adverse cases

6. Oral Pleadings:

6.1 All the participating teams will report at Symbiosis Law School, Pune on 7th February,

2014 latest by 1 pm.

6.2 There will be an Orientation Program for all the participants on the aforementioned date

followed by a draw of lots & exchange of memorials.

6.3 The oral rounds will commence on 8th February, 2013.

6.4 The dress code shall be advocate’s attire i.e. Black and White Combination including a

Black Blazer and Formal shoes.

6.5 There will be two Elimination Rounds i.e. Round-I and Round -II, followed by Quarter

Final, Semi Final and the Finals.


27

6.6 Elimination Round: This Round will comprise two sessions and the participating teams

will have an opportunity to argue for both the sides. In each of the Elimination Rounds the

respective teams will be assigned either side i.e. Petitioner or Respondent depending on the

lots drawn. Each team will face different opponents in both the rounds and shall necessari-

ly plead both sides.

6.7 Quarter Final: At the end of the Elimination Round, the first eight (8) teams will qualify

for the Quarter Finals. The first eight teams will be selected on the basis of number of

rounds won. In case of a tie, the team with higher marks in memorial will proceed to the

Quarter Finals. The Quarter Finals will be held on 8th February, 2014.

6.8 Semi Final: The result of Quarters finals will be announced on 8th February, 2014 and the

four winning teams will proceed to the semifinal round to be held on 9 th February, 2014 as

decided by the knock-out system.

6.9 Final: Teams qualifying through the Semi Final Round through the knock out rounds will

qualify for the final round to be held on 9th February, 2014.

6.10 Allotted Time: During the elimination round each team will be given 30 minutes to pre-

sent their oral arguments. The Petitioner/Appellant will be given 2 minutes to make rebut-

tal statement which is included in the abovementioned 30 minutes. However, the scope of

Defendants/Respondent’s sur-rebuttals will not be included in their allotted time of 30

minutes and they shall be allowed to make sur-rebuttals in 2 additional minutes only at the

discretion of the judges. Participants should take note that rebuttals or sur-rebuttals can be

made by one speaker only. Each speaker must be allocated a minimum of 10 minutes. In

the quarterfinal, semifinal & final rounds each team will be given 45 minutes to present

their oral arguments each speaker must be allocated a minimum of 15 minutes.

6.11 Anonymity: Participants may introduce themselves to the court by his individual code.

However, the team’s Law college affiliation may not be mentioned at any time before the

awards ceremony. Further, all team members, coaches, advisors and observers shall refrain

from identifying a team’s school/college at any time and in any manner, including, but not


28

limited to, wearing any identifying items, such as badges, blazers, or pins or carrying iden-

tifying items, such as badges, blazers or pins or carrying identifying material (such as a

books with a college logo, or college seal).

7. Marking Criteria for Oral Pleadings:

7.1. The participants are advised that the judges will assess the performance under the

following heads-

Understanding Facts, Law and Procedure;

Application of Facts to the Case;

Logical Flow of Arguments;

Ingenuity and Ability to Answer Questions;

Deference to the Court, Style, demeanor and poise;

Proper and articulate analysis of the issues arising out of facts;

Ability to explain clearly legal principles;

Ability to argue by analogy from related aspects of law;

Reference to the Memorial.

7.2 For the duration of preliminary round, the memorial scores will be added to the

score of oral rounds and the ratio shall be Memorials will carry 30% and the oral sub-

missions will carry 70% of evaluation. Memorial Marks shall also be utilized to break

any tie arising from the preliminary rounds.

7.3 Memorial scores will not be added to the overall scores in any of the knock out

rounds (Quarter Final, Semi Final and the Finals).

8. Penalties Clause

Notwithstanding anything written as a part of the abovementioned rules, the following

penalties shall be levied on the participants:-

The hard copies must be exact print outs of the soft copies. Non-compliance

with this rule would entail disqualification.

Soft copy of Memorials submitted after the stipulated time will attract a penal-

ty of one mark for each hour of delay (on 18th January, 2014) and two marks

for each


29

subsequent day of delay, subject to prior notification and approval mentioned in Rule 5.4.

Hard copy of Memorials submitted after the stipulated time will attract a penalty of

two mark for each day of delay subject to prior notification and approval mentioned

in Rule 5.4.

Memorials exceeding the length of 40 A4 Pages stipulated in Rule 5.7 shall be sub-

jected to penalty of mark deductions.

Non-compliance with the rules mentioned in Rule 5.10 - 5.14 will attract deduction of

marks.

9. Accommodation and Boarding:

9.1. The organisers will provide accommodation and boarding.

9.2. The Local teams shall not be provided with accommodation or travel assistance.

9.3. Furthermore, the administrators are only responsible for receiving teams when they

reach Pune but shall not be responsible for any dropping facility.

9.4. Participants are hereby informed that organisers will provide accommodation to the

participants from 6th February, 2014, 12.00 noon till 12.00 noon on 10th February, 20134

9.5. The last date of sending of travel plan is 15th January, 2013

9.6 Organisers will provide only one room to each team.

10. Prizes:

Best Team - Rs. 25,000/-

Runner up Team - Rs. 18,000/-

Best Memorial - Rs. 10,000/-

Best Advocate - Rs. 7,000/-

2nd Best Advocate - Rs. 4,000/-

The abovementioned prizes will be accompanied by certificates. Individual certificates

of participation shall be awarded to all members of participating teams.


30

11. For Queries regarding the Moot Problems, contact:

Mr. R. Muralidharan at [email protected] and a Carbon Copy ("CC") to

the administrators on [email protected] with the subject as “Clarifications:

6th Symbiosis-B. Krishna Memorial National IPR Moot Court Competition, 2014.”

12. Complaints:

Anyone aggrieved by the decision(s) of the Administrating Committee can lodge a

Complaint with the Administrating Committee, which will ensure the fair redressal of

the grievance, either before or after the conclusion of the Competition. In any case, the

decision of the Administrating committee will be final.

13. Copyright:

Symbiosis Law School, Pune, will have the right to assert copyright over the memorials

of the team that had received any of the prizes and reserve the right to publish the win-

ning Memorials after appropriate editing.

14. Scouting

No member of any team will be permitted to hear the arguments in any court room in

which that team is not one of the contesting teams whilst that team is still in the compe-

tition. The Organisers shall take strict action, including expulsion from the competition,

against any team found to be scouting through a team member or through any other

means.

15. Organizers’ Powers

a) All Participants are expected to maintain decorum in the Court during the competition

and are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the legal profession. The

Organisers reserve the right to take appropriate action for any unethical, unprofessional

and immoral conduct.

b) The Organisers decision as regards the interpretation of rules or any other matter




31

related to the competition will be final and binding.

c) If there is any situation which is not contemplated in the rules, the Organisers decision

on the same shall be final and binding.

d) The Organisers reserve the right to vary, alter, modify, or repeal any of the above rules

without any prior notification, if so required and as they may deem appropriate.

16. For Any Clarifications:

Dr. Shashikant Hajare

Faculty in Charge - Moot Court Association

E-mail: [email protected].

Postal Address: Symbiosis Law School,

Senapati Bapat Road,

Pune - 411004, Maharashtra

Student Co-ordinators:

Varun Tripathi, Convener, Moot Court Association: +91 9503212101

Nithin Patil P +91 9604970925

Registration and Memorial Committee In-Charge:

Priyanka Arora- +91 7507516499

Student Hospitality In-Charge:(Accommodation and Conveyance)

Vadeendra Joshi: +91 7709924433



32

IMPORTANT DATES FOR REGISTERING TEAMS

The Moot Court Association requests all the participants to follow the Schedule strictly.

_____________________________________________________________________

Schedule —————————————————————————————–—————


EVENT

DEADLINE

Release of Moot Problem 6th November, 2013

Last Date of Provisional Registration 4th January, 2014

Last Date for Submitting Registration

Form and Demand Draft 11th January, 2014

Deadline for Submission of Travel Form 15th January, 2014

Deadline for soft copies submission of

Memorials

18th January, 2014

(9:00 p.m.) Deadline for hard copies submission of

Memorials 22nd January, 2014

Last Date for Clarification 15th January, 2014

Deadline for hard copies submission of

Memorials with penalty (2 marks each 22nd – 25th January, 2014

Oral Rounds of the Competition

7th – 9th February, 2014

33 31 6TH SYMBIOSIS—B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014

34

To be emailed to the Organizing Committee at symbiosis-

[email protected] on or before 15th

January, 2014:

Name of the Institution: ___________________________________________________

ARRIVAL:

Date of Arrival: ___________________________________________________________

Mode (Train/Airways/Bus): _________________________________________________

(Train/Airways/Bus) Number: _______________________________________________

Time of arrival of Train/Airways/Bus: ________________________________________

Other Details (eg. Name of Airline, Bus Service etc.): ____________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Travel Plan —————————————————————————————–—————



Documents

6TH SYMBIOSIS B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL National …...02 6TH SYMBIOSIS—B. KRISHNA MEMORIAL NATIONAL IPR MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2014 5 A practical approach is one of the best ways to