IP Moot Court opportunities
Pierce Law IP Moot Court Wall of Fame shows sustainable excellence
November 2009 : The Financial Times names Pierce Law now the US's foremost institute for the study of intellectual property law.
Potential IP employers look both for academic achievement as well as demonstrable experience. For over three decades Pierce Law has led the way in offering the widest range of opportunities considered to be such experience. One opportunity is IP related Moot Court Competitions.
IP Moot Court opportunities at Pierce are a true campus wide team effort involving:
- Student participants
- Student peer advisors
- Student peer judges
- Faculty advisors
- Faculty judges
- Alumni advisors and judges
- IP Library resources
Moot Court - a simulation of an appellate court proceeding Moot Court involves teams of students. Moot court is used as an educational tool around the world. Moot court has apparently been featured in legal training for hundreds of years, with origins in medieval England.
Moot Court is a prestigious honor unique to law school. It is rigorous and time intensive. As a Moot Court competitor, you and your partner will be solely responsible for the substance of your brief. It will require strong research, writing and oral argument skills. It is one of the highlights of any law school career.
Pierce IP students compete against the top writers and orators from other law schools in the nation. Pierce IP students regularly compete at the highest levels and have won awards in many categories including legal writing, analysis, brief preparation and oral argument performance.
There are many IP competitions around the globe. Pierce Law students can avail themselves of these global competitions. The major IP competitions in the United States include:
Cardozo / BMI Entertainment and Communications Law Moot Court Competition
National moot court competition sponsored by BMI.
Giles S. Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition
National patent and intellectual property moot court competition sponsored by the American Intellectual Property Law Association.
| Year | Association | Competition | Recipient(s) | Award/Placing |
| 2007 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Andrea Leczynski and Ross Hicks | National Second Place Winners |
| 2006 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Jonathan Fallon and D. Jeremy Harrison | Northeastern Regional Winner: First Place |
| 2002 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Robert Kajubi | Northeastern Regional Winner, Best Advocate |
| 1998 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | James C. Calkins and Christopher S. Tuttle | Southern Regional Runner-Up |
| 1998 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | James C. Calkins and Christopher S. Tuttle | Winner |
| 1997 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Dan Cahoy and James Calkins | Winner |
| 1997 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Dan Cahoy and James Calkins | Northeastern Regional Winner, Best Appellee Brief |
| 1997 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Dan Cahoy and James Calkins | Northeastern Regional Runner-Up |
| 1995 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Russell Binns, Rebecca Goldman | Regional Winner: Best Appellate Brief |
| 1995 | American Intellectual Property Law Association | Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition | Russell Binns, Rebecca Goldman | Regional Winner |
John Marshall Moot Court Competition in Information Technology & Privacy Law
Students from law schools throughout the country and from outside the U.S. gather at John Marshall each year to brief and argue challenging and unresolved issues of technology law.
Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition
National trademark law moot court competition sponsored by the Brand Names Education Foundation.
| Year | Association | Competition | Recipient(s) | Award/Placing |
| 2007-2008 | International Trademark Association | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Brandt Madsen | Best Oral Argument Team |
| 2007-2008 | International Trademark Association | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Michael Farah | Best Oral Argument: Eastern Regional Oral Arguments |
| 2007-2008 | International Trademark Association | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Daniel Landau | Best Oral Argument: Eastern Regional Oral Arguments |
| 2004-2005 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Third Place/East Regional | |
| 2004-2005 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Christopher Hanba, Christiane Schuman, Christopher J. Somma, Adam Ullman | Best Brief: East Region |
| 2003-2004 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Second Place: East Region | |
| 2002-2003 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Frances Whitaker, Kee Bong Kim | National Second Place Winners |
| 2002-2003 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Frances Whitaker, Kee Bong Kim | National Best Brief Award |
| 2001-2002 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Andrew Mierins, Anne E. Yates | Second Place: East Region |
| 1998-99 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | James F. Laboe, Gina C. McCool | Third Place: Northeast Region |
| 1998-99 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | James F. Laboe, Gina C. McCool | Third Place Oralist Team: Northeast Region |
| 1998-99 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Steve Zemanick, Molly McPartlin | Second Place Oralist Team: National |
| 1998-99 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Steve Zemanick, Molly McPartlin | Second Place Team: National |
| 1998-99 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | James F. Laboe, Gina C. McCool | Best Brief: National |
| 1997-98 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Dana Metes, Andrew Klungness | Second Place: East Region |
| 1997-98 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Dana Metes, Andrew Klungness | Best Oralist Team: East Region |
| 1995-96 | Brand Names Education Foundation | Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition | Ainslee Schreiber, Kirk Gottlieb, Jeff Greger | Third Place Team: East Region |
The Annual Willem C. Vis (East) International Commercial Arbitration Moot
The goal of the Vis Moot is to foster the study of international commercial law and arbitration for resolution of international business disputes through its application to a concrete problem of a client and to train law leaders of tomorrow in methods of alternative dispute resolution. The business community's marked preference for resolving international commercial disputes by arbitration is the reason this method of dispute resolution was selected.
Law students participate in two crucial phases: the writing of memoranda for claimant and respondent, and the hearing of oral argument based upon the memoranda - both judged by a panel of three arbitration experts. The exercises concern questions of contract - flowing from a transaction relating to the sale or purchase of goods under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and other uniform international commercial law - in the context of an arbitration of a dispute under specified Arbitration Rules.
Students find Moot Court to be a very beneficial experience. Pierce student Daniel Landau, recently participated and shares,
“Participating in the Lefkowitz Trademark Moot Court Competition was certainly one of the highlights of my law school career thus far. Although preparing for the competition took lots of time, dedication and teamwork, bringing a first place win in the oral argument back to Pierce Law made it all worth it. My team and I were grateful to have this opportunity and would jump at the chance to do it again.”
