Applicant Memo

A-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 APPLICANT
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 CONTENTS...........................................................................................................II
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS..............................................................................................IV
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
LIST OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................X
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................XIII
QUESTIONS PRESENTED..................................................................................................XV
SUMMARY OF ARGUMETS.............................................................................................XVI
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....................................................................................................1
I.
THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE.................................1

(A)
There was an unqualified consent to arbitrate the claim in question.......................2
(B)
Applicant is a covered 'investor' under the treaty....................................................2
(C)
Applicants patents 'A' and 'B' amount to qualified investments..........................3
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
1. There should be a legal dispute................................................................................3
2. There should be an investment................................................................................4
(D)
II.
The treaty was in force when the dispute arose.......................................................6
RESPONDENT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO ACCORD FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TREATMENT TO APPLICANT UNDER BIT ARTICLE 1(2).....................7
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
(A)
Respondent violated Applicants Legitimate Expectations.....................................9
1. Respondent failed to ensure a Stable Framework..................................................10

2. Respondent violated its other International Obligations........................................11
(B)
Respondents Action caused a Denial of Justice....................................................15
1. Respondents Undue Delay caused a Denial of Justice.........................................15
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
2. Respondent caused a Substantial Denial Of Justice..............................................16
(C)
Respondent discriminated against Applicant.........................................................18
III. THE
RESPONDENT
EXPROPRIATED
APPLICANT'S
INVESTMENT
IN
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE BIT........................................................................19

(A)
Expropriation is defined under the BIT and Customary International Law.........19
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
(B)
Acts of the PPO, PCT and the High Court can be attributed to the Respondent...21
(C)
The grant of compulsory licensing by PCT amounts to expropriation..................22
1. Applicant's property was substantially deprived...................................................22

2. Respondent frustrated Applicant's legitimate expectations...................................23
3. The applied law is not TRIPS compliant...............................................................24
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
4. Exercise of regulatory powers does not justify deprivation..................................24
5. It is an act of unlawful expropriation.....................................................................24
(D)
The invalidation of Patent B by the PPO amounts to expropriation.....................25
(E)
The Order of the High Court amounts to expropriation........................................26
(F)
In any case, the actions amount to creeping expropriation....................................27
Paragraph
Art.
Article
BIT
CCI
ECJ
FET
FRAND
ICJ
ICSID
IIAs
ILC
IPR
MST
NAFTA
p.
Page number
RELIEF SOUGHT.............................................................................................................XVIII

Applicant Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applicant Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A-09

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF

IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

1ST JINDAL TECHNOLOGY LAW AND POLICY MOOT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Bilateral Investment Treaty

Competition Commission of India

Court of Justice European Union

Fair and Equitable Treatment

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

International Court of Justice

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

International Investment Agreements

International Law Commission

Intellectual Property Rights

Minimum Standard Treatment

North American Free Trade Agreement

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Bilateral Investment Treaty

Competition Commission of India

Court of Justice European Union

Fair and Equitable Treatment

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

International Court of Justice

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

International Investment Agreements

International Law Commission

Intellectual Property Rights

Minimum Standard Treatment

North American Free Trade Agreement

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Bilateral Investment Treaty

Competition Commission of India

Court of Justice European Union

Fair and Equitable Treatment

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

International Court of Justice

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

International Investment Agreements

International Law Commission

Intellectual Property Rights

Minimum Standard Treatment

North American Free Trade Agreement

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

There was an unqualified consent to arbitrate the claim in question.......................2

Applicant is a covered 'investor' under the treaty....................................................2

Applicants patents 'A' and 'B' amount to qualified investments..........................3

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Bilateral Investment Treaty

Competition Commission of India

Court of Justice European Union

Fair and Equitable Treatment

Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory

International Court of Justice

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

International Investment Agreements

International Law Commission

Intellectual Property Rights

Minimum Standard Treatment

North American Free Trade Agreement

The treaty was in force when the dispute arose.......................................................6

RESPONDENT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO ACCORD FAIR AND