Appendix A: Moot Problem from the 2009-2010 Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot

• Author: Emir Aly Crowne-Mohammed/Mohamed R. Hashim/Shelley Kierstead
• Profession: Assistant Professor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, Founder and Co-Chair of the Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot/Articling Student (2009?2010), Heenan Blaikie LLP, Law Clerk (2010?2011), Mr. Justice Hughes, Federal Court (Canada), Co-founder of the Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot/Assistant Professor, and Director of the...
• Pages: 43-51

43

Appendix A: Moot Problem from the 2009–2010 Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot

appendix a

Moot Problem from the 2009–2010

Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property

Moot

HAROLD G. FOX MOOT

MOOT PROBLEM

October 16, 2009

1. The following are reasons and judgment of the Trial Court of Canada, Intel-

lectual Property Division. The decision of the Trial Court was subsequently

overturned by the Court of Appeal; the reasons and judgment for which are

also set out below.

2. Both Courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in their respective deci-

sions. The standard of review adopted by the Court of Appeal is also correct

and not the subject of appeal.

3. The decision of the Court of Appeal is now appealed to the Supreme Moot

Court for Intellectual Property Appeals.

4. All of the issues raised in the reasons given by the lower courts should be

addressed by counsel for Seedy Enterprises Ltd. or The Dead Bull Group Inc.

in their submissions. Arguments not referenced in the reasons of the lower

courts may be advanced by counsel in their submissions, but only if they re-

late to the issues identif‌ied in the lower courts’ decisions. The subject matter

of the appeal is conf‌ined to the law of patents, but reference to the Food and

Drugs Act (and Food and Drug Regulations) is acceptable in addressing the

issue(s).

5. The formalities of the remedy sought, and costs, are not to be addressed.