We invite you to participate in the tryouts for the ! We are fortunate to welcome back our coaches from Bereskin & Parr LLP, including 2017 finalists Paul Blizzard & Denver Bandstra! Students on the team will also practice mooting with and receive direct feedback from various B&P associates and partners.

Students interested in trying out for Osgoode’s PADC team must submit answers to our����������3 pm on Friday, September 23, 2022.�� Please send your answers in a Word document with your name in the file name to��iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca.

Each member of the team will receive up to��3 credits��for participating in the competition.��Please note that only 2L and 3L students may participate. Please also note that under Academic Rule 4.3e, students may participate for credit in only one lawyer simulation competition in a given academic year unless they obtain permission from the Director of Mooting and Lawyering Simulations.

About the National Patent Application Drafting Competition

Originally created in 2014 as a midwest competition, the Competition is today a national inter-law school competition designed to introduce law students to issues arising in United States patent law. Participants will have the opportunity to develop their patent prosecution skills by applying legal principles to a hypothetical invention scenario (“Invention Statement”) and appreciating the intricacies of drafting a patent specification and claims that are both patentable and valuable. Each team will complete a search pertaining to the Invention Statement, draft a utility patent application, and defend their decisions before a panel of judges comprising USPTO executives/personnel, patent practitioners, academia and/or special guest judges.

The Competition consists of regional rounds held virtually. The winner of each regional round will compete in the National Finals held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. ��

Invention statements will be released to teams in early November 2022. Regional virtual tryouts will be held on March 4, 2023, followed by the National Finals Competition on April 14, 2023.��

Read about the experiences of past students here:

The complete set of rules for this year, can be found here: .

If you have further questions or would like more information, please email iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca.

We look forward to another great year at the Patent Application Drafting Competition!

The post CALL FOR TRYOUTS - USPTO National Patent Application Drafting Competition appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Students interested in trying out for Osgoode’s PADC team must submit answers to our�� in a Word document with your name in the file name to��iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca.

Each member of the team will receive up to��3 credits��for participating in the competition.��Please note that only 2L and 3L students may participate.��Please also note that under Academic Rule 4.3e, students may participate for credit in only one lawyer simulation competition in a given academic year unless they obtain permission from the Director of Mooting and Lawyering Simulations.

About the Patent Drafting Competition

Originally created in 2014 as a midwest competition, the Competition is today a national inter-law school competition designed to introduce law students to issues arising in United States patent law. Participants will have the opportunity to develop their patent prosecution skills by applying legal principles to a hypothetical invention scenario (“Invention Statement”) and appreciating the intricacies of drafting a patent specification and claims that are both patentable and valuable. Each team will complete a search pertaining to the Invention Statement, draft a utility patent application, and defend their decisions before a panel of judges comprising USPTO executives/personnel, patent practitioners, academia and/or special guest judges.

The Competition consists of regional rounds held virtually. The winner of each regional round will compete in the National Finals held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. ��

The Competition consists of regional rounds held virtually. The winner of each regional round will compete in the National Finals held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. ��

Invention statements will be released to teams on November 1, 2021. Team patent applications will be due on January 16, 2022. Regional virtual tryouts will be held on March 5, 2022, followed by the National Finals Competition on April 8, 2022.��

Read about the experiences of the students on last year’s team here:��

The complete set of rules for this year, can be found here:��.

If you have further questions or would like more information, please email Ashley Moniz at��amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca.

We look forward to another great year at the Patent Drafting Competition!

The post REMINDER: Tryouts for the USPTO National Patent Application Drafting Competition Team - DEADLINE TOMORROW appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Students enrolled in the moot have the distinct opportunity to be coached by lawyers at Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP and former Osgoode team members, receive guidance from faculty advisors who founded the moot, and, if selected for the oral rounds, practice in front of judges on IP Osgoode's Advisory Board.��

We thank all interested applicants and continue to look forward to another great year in the Oxford Moot.

***

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

Please contact Ashley Moniz (amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca)��as soon as possible to indicate your interest and receive further instructions.��Please include the following email subject heading in all communications: “Oxford Moot 2021/22 Tryouts – [FIRST & LAST NAME]”.

Following the tryouts, 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. For their participation, students receive 3 graded credits for preparing their written arguments and 2 credits for the oral rounds 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 Ashley directly at amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca.

Thank you for your interest, we look forward to another exciting year with the Oxford IP Moot!

The post Oxford IP Moot Tryouts EXTENDED appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Students interested in trying out for Osgoode’s PADC team must submit answers to our by 3 pm on Friday, October 22, 2021.�� Please send your answers in a Word document with your name in the file name to iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca.

��Each member of the team will receive up to 3 credits for participating in the competition. Please note that only 2L and 3L students may participate.��Please also note that under Academic Rule 4.3e, students may participate for credit in only one lawyer simulation competition in a given academic year unless they obtain permission from the Director of Mooting and Lawyering Simulations.

About the Patent Drafting Competition

Originally created in 2014 as a midwest competition, the Competition is today a national inter-law school competition designed to introduce law students to issues arising in United States patent law. Participants will have the opportunity to develop their patent prosecution skills by applying legal principles to a hypothetical invention scenario (“Invention Statement”) and appreciating the intricacies of drafting a patent specification and claims that are both patentable and valuable. Each team will complete a search pertaining to the Invention Statement, draft a utility patent application, and defend their decisions before a panel of judges comprising USPTO executives/personnel, patent practitioners, academia and/or special guest judges.

The Competition consists of regional rounds held virtually. The winner of each regional round will compete in the National Finals held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. ��

The Competition consists of regional rounds held virtually. The winner of each regional round will compete in the National Finals held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. ��

Invention statements will be released to teams on November 1, 2021. Team patent applications will be due on January 16, 2022. Regional virtual tryouts will be held on March 5, 2022, followed by the National Finals Competition on April 8, 2022.��

Read about the experiences of the students on last year’s team here:

The complete set of rules for this year, can be found here: .

If you have further questions or would like more information, please email Ashley Moniz at amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca.

We look forward to another great year at the Patent Drafting Competition!

The post CALL FOR TRYOUTS - USPTO National Patent Application Drafting Competition appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

Please contact Ashley Moniz (amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca) by Monday 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^th at 3pm to send us your skeleton arguments. Please include the following email subject heading in all communications: “Oxford Moot 2021/22 Tryouts – [FIRST & LAST NAME]”.

Following the tryouts, 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. For their participation, students receive 3 graded credits for preparing their written arguments and 2 credits for the oral rounds 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 Ashley directly at amoniz@osgoode.yorku.ca.

Thank you for your interest, we look forward to another exciting year with the Oxford IP Moot!

The post REMINDER: Oxford IP Moot Tryouts are Next Week! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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.

The doctrine at issue, patent exhaustion, is best defined by a recent American Supreme Court case called . At paragraph 4, the Court stated that “...patent exhaustion is uniform and automatic. Once a patentee decides to sell - whether on its own or through a licensee - that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee purports to impose, either directly or through a license.” In brief, the doctrine states that selling an article without imposing contractual limitations on that sale means you can no longer control what the buyer does with what you’ve sold them.

What we found was that this principle has been implicitly adopted into Canadian law for over 20 years. In��., the Supreme Court of Canada stated that after a patented article is sold, the patent owner, “no longer has any right with respect to the article.”��Purchasers can alienate articles freely, “without fear of infringing his vendor’s patent,” This means the exclusive intellectual property rights of each owner are exhausted at the time of sale. The Court also accepted the principle that restrictions need to be expressly stated.��Without restrictions, you have no rights to the item you sell. Paragraph 9 of the decision outlines that in order to enforce restrictions placed on a sold article, you need to put explicit contractual limitations on that sale.

In 2013, the Federal Court in . affirmed at paragraph 226 of that decision what was suggested in Eli Lilly, but from the purchaser’s perspective, that purchasers of patented devices are presumed to hold the right to use them “without restriction.” This decision stated the same principle applied to vendors, but reinforced the purchaser’s perspective on the same topic.

But if the doctrine is already implicit in Canadian law, why should we be interested in explicitly adopting it? There are three real and relevant reasons that we should want to. First, in terms of the history of intellectual property law, what we often forget is that the fundamental tenets of property law naturally extend to intellectual property. Historically, the law has resisted . Conditions that prohibited this were considered void, since reducing alienation decreases economic freedom. Without adopting the doctrine of patent exhaustion, buyers would need to worry that their activities would infringe upon the rights of those from who they bought their products.

Second, there are economic benefits to adopting the doctrine. It will promote industry in Canada, and failing to clarify the applicability of the doctrine would disadvantage Canadians relative to their American counterparts where the doctrine does exist. If buyers are concerned that there will be hidden, enforceable limitations on what they can do with the products they buy, they will likely buy those products in the States where the doctrine of patent exhaustion applies. Finally, we do extensive business with the US, and it makes far more sense for this system to work as a two-way-street. Even now, in the face of COVID-19, we’re choosing to even though the passage of most non-Canadians has been banned.

Finally, adopting the doctrine would discourage the exhaustion of our judicial resources in jurisdictional disputes. Even though the Supreme Court has never used the term “patent exhaustion” explicitly in judgements that refer to its principles, the truth is that the doctrine is already in Canada. Recognizing that will reduce the risk of international disputes arising based on the unrestricted use of legally purchased articles.

Ultimately, the moot was a lesson in both patents and perspective. I thought I would simply get a few extra credits this year, but I wound up having my mind opened to the state of the law in our neighbouring nation. Canada and the USA share the in the world, and we are deeply connected both socially and economically. In spite of our proximal connection, our nations differ in some significant social, political, and economic ways. I realized that I had assumed American IP law was going to be equally hard to reconcile. As I prepare to begin my own career, I am glad I learned to give American intellectual property law the attention and deference it deserves. Thanks to this moot, I will look at American law with enthusiasm instead of reticence, which in turn will make me a better lawyer no matter what country my clients are from.�� ��

Written by Emily Papsin, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Emily is also a Clinic Fellow at IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic.

��

The post The Adoption and Existence of the American Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion in Canada 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. �첥��Ƶing 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.

The potential detriment to brand value from this parasitic practice has become such a concern that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) insists that host countries enact special protection legislation over their marks and Games space. Even with these protections, the issues are challenging to manage from both a legal and PR perspective.

This was the subject matter students from around the world contemplated and debated at the . The moot problem gave law students the opportunity to tackle the legal intricacies of ambush marketing and develop arguments for and against the special legislation within the context of the moot issues.

The (Similar to the Olympic Games) in the equally fictional jurisdiction of Erewhon (a semi-palindrome of ‘nowhere’). Outside Games venues, an animal Sanctuary with no relationship to the Games, posted four identical billboard advertisements depicting a photograph of two juvenile billibies (fictional animals) atop the tag line “For more fun and games, visit the Erewhonian Animal Sanctuary”. This paralleled the two cartoon billibies that had been designed and launched as the Games’ official mascots. Unauthorized use of billiby indicia and the word Games was prohibited under special Erewhonian legislation (the Indicia Act) designed to create a limited monopoly over use of Games’ marks.

To add to the fun (and games), the problem also included a second respondent who had initially been the illustrator of the Games mascots, but later became dismayed by a perceived hyper-commercialization of the Games organizers. He chose to comment by drawing imposter mascots engaging in distasteful behaviours. He put these images on products and sold them to the public. These actions potentially violated both the Indicia Act and copyright law. Under copyright law, the illustrator claimed statutory defences of fair dealing and a rarely used subsequent works of the artist defence.

The moot is designed in two distinct parts – the written rounds and the oral stage. Approximately fifty teams from law schools around the world submitted facta to the Oxford moot using international jurisprudence and legislation to support their ambush marketing arguments. The organizing committee selected the top twenty-four facta and invited those teams to Oxford for the oral rounds. , since Osgoode first participated in the moot in 2015, Osgoode Hall Law School made the cut.

The team had eight weeks to prepare for the oral rounds with the dedicated assistance of their coaches, and of Cassels Brock, and the ; with this dream team, Osgoode’s international IP mooting squad entered the oral rounds armed with the skills to compete in this illustrious international competition.

This year, the moot had representation from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Australia, India, Singapore, China and Malaysia. The preliminary round consisted of four moots. Osgoode faced some terrific talent with solid, well-reasoned submissions. At the end of these rounds, the teams, their coaches. distinguished jurists, practitioners and academics joined together for an evening of conversazione, including an enchanting formal dinner in the palatial 19^th century Pembroke Hall. At the end of the evening, the top eight quarter-finalists were announced and Osgoode was named amongst this distinguished group.

The team members, Jennifer Davidson, Jacquilynne Schlesier and Colin Lyon, wish to extend their sincere thanks to the dedicated practitioners, professors, administrators and students who assisted in the preparation process: The Honourable Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for his insight and feedback; Stephen Selznick and Stephen Henderson for their tireless support throughout; IP Osgoode Founder & Director, Prof. Giuseppina D’Agostino for her continuous encouragement; Andrew Shaughnessy of Torys LLP, David Tait and Rebecca Crane of McCarthy Tétrault; Urszula Wodjtyra, Kevin Siu and Lou Chang of Smart and Biggar / Fetherstonhaugh; Michelle Li, Dr. Carys Craig, Natia Tucci, Faisal Bhabha and Aviv Gaon of Osgoode Hall Law School; and the Osgoode Student Mooting Society. The team is endlessly grateful for your support.

Left to Right: Prof. Giuseppina D'Agostino, The Honourable Marshall Rothstein, Jennifer R. Davidson, Jacquilynne Schlesier, Colin Lyon

Left to Right: Aviv Gaon, Jacquilynne Schlesier, Jennifer R. Davidson, Colin Lyon

Jennifer R. Davidson and Jacquilynne Schlesier are JD Candidates at Osgoode Hall Law School and members of Team Quatchi for the Oxford International IP Moot.��

The post For More ‘Fun and Games’, visit the 14th Annual Oxford International 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.