R-09

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF

INVESTMENT DISPUTES

IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN

FUN-FIX...............................................................................................................CLAIMANT

v.

REPUBLIC OF PARADICE................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

1ST JINDAL TECHNOLOGY LAW AND POLICY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Paragraph

Art.

Article

BIT

Bilateral Investment Treaty

CCI

Competition Commission of India

ECJ

Court of Justice European Union

FET

Fair and Equitable Treatment

FRAND

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICSID

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IIAs

International Investment Agreements

ILC

International Law Commission

IPR

Intellectual Property Rights

MST

Minimum Standard Treatment

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

P.

Page number
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................IV
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................................................XIII

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Paragraph

Art.

Article

BIT

Bilateral Investment Treaty

CCI

Competition Commission of India

ECJ

Court of Justice European Union

FET

Fair and Equitable Treatment

FRAND

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICSID

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IIAs

International Investment Agreements

ILC

International Law Commission

IPR

Intellectual Property Rights

MST

Minimum Standard Treatment

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

P.

Page number

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................. XVI

QUESTIONS PRESENTED...........................................................................................XVIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMETS........................................................................................... XIX
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1
I.

THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE..............................................1

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Paragraph

Art.

Article

BIT

Bilateral Investment Treaty

CCI

Competition Commission of India

ECJ

Court of Justice European Union

FET

Fair and Equitable Treatment

FRAND

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICSID

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IIAs

International Investment Agreements

ILC

International Law Commission

IPR

Intellectual Property Rights

MST

Minimum Standard Treatment

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

P.

Page number
(A)

There Is No Unqualified Consent To Arbitrate The Claim In Question..................2

(B)

This Tribunal Does Not Have Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae Because Claimants

Exploitation Of Patent A And Patent B Is Not An Investment...........................................2

1.

Patents A And B Are Not Protected Investments Under Article 25(1) ICSID.....3

2.

Patents A And B Are Not Protected Investments Under Clause (I) BIT..............5

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Paragraph

Art.

Article

BIT

Bilateral Investment Treaty

CCI

Competition Commission of India

ECJ

Court of Justice European Union

FET

Fair and Equitable Treatment

FRAND

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICSID

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IIAs

International Investment Agreements

ILC

International Law Commission

IPR

Intellectual Property Rights

MST

Minimum Standard Treatment

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

P.

Page number
(C)
II.

There Is No Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis:............................................................6

RESPONDENT TREATED APPLICANT FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY......................................7

(A)

Respondent Has Met Applicants Legitimate Expectations.....................................8

(B)

Respondent Has Complied With All Its Other International Obligations..............12

(C)

Respondents Acts Do Not Amount To A Denial Of Justice..................................15

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Paragraph

Art.

Article

BIT

Bilateral Investment Treaty

CCI

Competition Commission of India

ECJ

Court of Justice European Union

FET

Fair and Equitable Treatment

FRAND

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICSID

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IIAs

International Investment Agreements

ILC

International Law Commission

IPR

Intellectual Property Rights

MST

Minimum Standard Treatment

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

P.

Page number
III. RESPONDENT DID NOT EXPROPRIATE APPLICANT'S INVESTMENT...........................19
(A)

Respondent Did Not Directly Expropriate Applicant's Patents.............................19

(B)

Respondent Did Not Indirectly Expropriate Applicant's Patents...........................19

1.

Invalidation of Patent B by PPO does not amount to expropriation..................20

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Paragraph

Art.

Article

BIT

Bilateral Investment Treaty

CCI

Competition Commission of India

ECJ

Court of Justice European Union

FET

Fair and Equitable Treatment

FRAND

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICSID

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IIAs

International Investment Agreements

ILC

International Law Commission

IPR

Intellectual Property Rights

MST

Minimum Standard Treatment

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

P.

Page number
2.

Grant Of Compulsory License By The PCT Does Not Amount To Expropriation

22

3.

High Court's Order Does Not Amount To An Act Of Expropriation.................27

RELIEF SOUGHT............................................................................................................XVII