INTRA- U NIVERSITY PROPERTY LAW TEAM CODE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 RACHEL GREEN

________________________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

________________________________________________________________________________________

PETITION

Petition No. ……… of 2022

FILED UNDER THE

THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
50
________________________________________________________________________________________

-------IN THE MATTER BETWEEN-------

MR.VIKRAM VEDHA

...................PETITIONER

v.

SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN FOOD SCIENCES &ORS.

...................RESPONDENT .

________________________________________________________________________________________

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

________________________________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBM ISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. Title Page No.

1 List of Abbreviations 3

2 Index of Authorities 4

3 Statement of Jurisdiction 6

4 Statement of Facts 7

5 Statement of Issues 8

6 Summary of Arguments 9

7 Arguments Advanced 10

8 7.1) That there is an existence of a contractual relationship 10

9 7.2) That there is no need for urgent interim relief 12

10 7.3) That the non-compliance with section 12(a) of the 13

Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

11 7.4) That the thesis and dissertations are not protected 14

12 7.5) That the law does not encourage plagiarism 15

13 7.6) That the product is patentable 17

14 7.7) That the product violated the copyright of Mr. Vikram Vedha? 18

15 Prayer 20

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 2

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Abbreviation
& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Const. Constitution

CRW Convention of Rights of Women

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ors Others

Para Paragraph

Pvt. Private

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 3

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

Supp. Supplement

UDHR United Declaration of Human Rights

v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books Referred
S. No. Name of the Book

1
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st Edition
2
Constitution of India by V N Shukla, 10th Edition 2006

3 Ultra Vires by B C Sharma

Authorities Cited

S. No. Case Law Citation Page No.

1. Goldstein v. New York University 2009 NY Slip Op 08677 10

2. M/S Patil Automation Private vs Rakheja SLP (C) No. 14697 of 13

Engineers Private SLP (C) No. 14697 of 2021 2021
National Insurance Company Limited vs.
3. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 267 11

Prabhakar vs M/S.Saga Films

4. (2022) 8 SCC 369 12

5. R.G Anand vs M/S. Deluxe Films & Ors (AIR (AIR 1978 SC 1613) 15
1978 SC 1613)

6. Shri P M Parameshwaramurthy vs State of 2012 (ILR 2013 KAR 16

Karnataka 209)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 4

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

7. Syndicate of Press of University of Cambridge 2006 (32) PTC 487 Del

17
v/s Kasturi Lal and Sons
8. U.P. Singh vs Board of Governors (1981) AIR 1982 MP 59 10

Lexicons Referred
S. No. Name of the Lexicon

1 Aiyar Ramanathan P, Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005

2 Garner Brayana, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999

Legislations Referred
S. No. Name of the Legislation

1 The Constitution of India, 1950.

2 The Indian Contract act, 1872
3 The Copyright act, 1957
4 Commercial Courts act, 2015
5 Berne Convention, 1887
6 TRIPS Agreement, 1995
7 The Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996
8 The Patents act, 1970

Websites Referred

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 5

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this Hon’ble High
Court of Madras. The petition invokes section 7 of Commercial Courts Act,20151. It sets forth the
facts and the laws on which the claims are based.

1
S. 7, Commercial Courts act, 2015
Section 7: Jurisdiction of Commercial Divisions of High Courts.
7. All suits and applications relating to commercial disputes of a Specified Value filed in a High Court having ordinary
original civil jurisdiction shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of that High Court:
Provided that all suits and applications relating to commercial disputes, stipulated by an Act to lie in a court not inferior to
a District Court, and filed or pending on the original side of the High Court, shall be heard and disposed of by the
Commercial Division of the High Court:
Provided further that all suits and applications transferred to the High Court by virtue of sub-section (4) of section 22 of
the Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000) or section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970) shall be heard and disposed of by
the Commercial Division of the High Court in all the areas over which the High Court exercises ordinary original civil
jurisdiction.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 6

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.1) After attaining freedom on 15th August 1947, The Republic of Pushpa drafted an extensive
Constitution, granting powers to the Parliament to make laws, including Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR). The Parliament passed the Copyrights Act, 1957, consolidating copyright laws, followed by The
Patents Act, 1970, stating that certain works were not patentable.

1.2) In the same year, the School of Excellence in Food Sciences was established in a metropolitan city,
aspiring to be the foremost choice for Food Sciences in Pushpa, updating its syllabus regularly. To
adapt to changing times, the University introduced 'Compulsory Thesis Presentation' for graduation.

1.3) Mr. Vikram Vedha had to present a thesis on 'Making cottage cheese with almond milk and
soymilk' due to the COVID-19 lockdown. He faced challenges, but after numerous attempts, succeeded
in making the cheese. The University awarded him 47 marks out of 50, making him the top scorer.

1.4) A year later, Mr. Vedha discovered that his University used his thesis to apply for an Australian
patent without his consent. The patent office granted the patent, and the University copied his work,
falsely adding co-inventors. Mr. Vedha was shocked as these professors had not contributed to his
thesis.

1.5) Mr. Vedha approached Professor Sivaji, his guide, who defended the patent application, claiming
they improved the idea without violating copyright. Unsatisfied, Mr. Vedha filed a commercial suit in
the Madras High Court, alleging IP rights violation and royalty non-payment, as the University's IP
Policy stated a 60:40 royalty sharing ratio.

1.6) The University argued that all IP belonged solely to them, proposing mediation and arbitration for
dispute resolution, stating Mr. Vedha prematurely approached the court. They presented a plagiarism
report claiming 80% of the thesis was plagiarized, challenging the existence of copyright.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 7

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

If it may please this Hon’ble court, in the interest of justice and on account of the reason of necessity
and brevity, this Hon’ble bench is empowered to address the following issues, provided as hereunder:
Issue – 1

Whether the suit filed before this Hon’ble Court was maintainable in the light of dispute resolution
process laid down in the IP Policy not being followed?

Issue – 2

Whether the thesis was literary work in which copyright subsisted?

Issue – 3

Whether the patent filed by the University in Australia violated copyright

of Mr. Vikram Vedha?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 8

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) Whether the suit filed before this Hon’ble Court was maintainable in the light of dispute
resolution process laid down in the IP Policy not being followed?

The respondents argue that the petition is not maintainable under Section 7 of the Commercial Courts
Act due to the existence of a contractual relationship between the petitioner and respondent, the
absence of the need for urgent interim relief, and the non-compliance with Section 12(a) for pre-
institution mediation. The university's policies were binding on both parties as part of the contract,
and the arbitration clause survives even after the conclusion of the contract. The respondents assert
that no urgent interim relief is required and that the petitioner did not participate in pre-institution
mediation as mandated by law. Therefore, they contend that the petition is not maintainable under the
Commercial Courts Act.

2) Whether the thesis was literary work in which copyright subsisted?

The respondents argue that the petitioner's thesis is not protected under copyright law as it contains
substantial plagiarism (80%) and lacks originality. The Doctrine of Fair Dealing does not apply when
plagiarism exceeds 50%, and the law does not encourage plagiarism, considering it morally and
ethically unacceptable. Hence, the thesis does not qualify as a literary work in which copyright
subsists.

3) Whether the patent filed by the University in Australia violated copyright of Mr. Vikram
Vedha?

The respondents argue that the petitioner's thesis lacked originality and was incomplete. They claim
that the patent granted by the institution violated Mr. Vikram Vedha's copyright as it was an expansion
of his idea and expression. However, the respondents assert that the patent is valid under the Patents
Act, 1970, and the TRIPS Agreement. They also contend that Mr. Vedha had already consented to the
institution's IP policy, making the patent claim valid.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 9

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT WAS MAINTAINABLE
IN THE LIGHT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS LAID DOWN IN THE IP POLICY
NOT BEING FOLLOWED?

It is the contention of the respondents, in this Hon’ble court that this petition filed by the Petitioners
under section 7 of the Commercial courts act, 2015. The reason for this is threefold;

1.1) THAT THERE IS AN EXISTENCE OF A CONTACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

1. Any student while joining was informed of the rules and policies of the university, the
university website also contains all the policies of the university. Furthermore, the petitioner has entered
into a contractual relationship with the respondent by merely joining the university. All essentials of a
valid contract2 exist, with the offer to join, the acceptance by the petitioner to join as a student, the
consideration, the service rendered by university. Both parties are competent to enter a contract, and
the consent was free from coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, therefore all essentials of a contract are
satisfied.

2. There is an implied contract3 between the petitioner and respondent by just merely taking
admission in the University, at the very least, even if there is not an explicit contract. All these facts
satisfy the essentials of a contract. Moreover, in Goldstein v. New York University4 and in U.P. Singh
vs Board of Governors5, it is established that there was indeed a contractual relationship between a
university and a student. The former case established that the relationship between the university and
the student was contractual because the student had joined after a formal letter of invitation was sent

2
S. 10, The Indian Contract act, 1872
3
S. 9, The Indian Contract act, 1872
4
Goldstein v. New York University, 2009 NY Slip Op 08677
5
U.P. Singh vs Board of Governors, (1981) AIR 1982 MP 59

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 10

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

and accepted. These two cases establish that there does exist a contractual relationship between the
petitioner and respondent in this particular case.

3. In the words of Justice. G. Singh Faizanuddin of the Madhya Pradesh high court in the latter
case “The relationship of students with the college in the instant case is not governed by any statute
but by a prospec-jtus. It has been held that a college pro-Ispectus containing the outline syllabus of a
course of study forms pan of a contract between the college and its I students” even considering the
fact that some legal minds have considered the reasoning that a contractual relationship was student
status deprivation, the court accepted it as a contractual relationship, as, if need be, in the words of the
Hon’ble judge “can be remedied by issuance Of prerogative writs of certiorari and mandamus” under
article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

4. This means that all the policies of the university and rules are binding on both the parties,
the petitioner and respondent as they were part of the terms of the contract. Since the policies were also
public to everyone and in the university website, no defence can be pleaded for the ignorance of the
facts and policies of the university, by the petitioner. Furthermore, Clause 10.1 stated in definitive terms
that if any inventor/author had any grievance regarding their intellectual property, they should approach
the Vice Chancellor of the University via a letter. Subsequently, mediation would be conducted and if
mediation failed, arbitration would be undertaken to resolve the issue. This clause is binding on the
petitioner due to the existence of a contractual relationship between them.

6. Even if an argument can be made that the contract had concluded after the student had
graduated, the arbitration clause in a contract is considered separate from the main contract of which it
is a part of and hence on account of invalidity, breach or termination of the contract, the arbitration
clause still survives simply because of the doctrine of severability, Section 16 (1)6 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation act, 1996 states that “an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be
treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract.” This is in order to give the
power to the arbitral tribunal to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction.

7. Nevertheless, by interpreting that part of the law, it is clear the intention of that particular
legislation was to ensure the arbitration clause was applicable and binding on both parties even when
breach, invalidity, termination, and conclusion of contract happens. In National Insurance Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSION
S. 16 (1), The Arbitration
6 ON BEHALF
and Conciliation act, 1996 OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 11
 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited7, the Supreme Court had held that an arbitration clause is
a collateral term of a contract distinguished from its substantive terms; it has been given a statutory
recognition under Section 16(1)(a) of the present Act. Therefore, it is the contention of the counsel for
respondents that Clause 10.1 holds and the petitioner is bound to act by the same.

1.2) THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR URGENT INTERIM RELEIF

8. 12A (1) 8 A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall
not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance
with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government. The
clear intention of this particular legislation is to promote alternative remedies, through mediation. The
respondents have through previous arguments also contended mediation must be followed for different
reasons, but here in this particular law, it’s given clearly that pre-institution mediation must be
exhausted first before approaching this court, but that was never followed by the petitioner.

9. There also exists no need for urgent interim relief, The literal definition of the word “Urgent”
is something “that needs to be dealt with or happen immediately” according to oxford learner’s
dictionary. “A temporary remedy, such as an interim injunction or interim payment, granted to a
claimant by a court pending the trial” is the definition of “Interim relief” under A dictionary of law,
Oxford. The contention of the counsel for respondents is that by literal interpretation of the rule, it is
clear that nothing in regards to the plaintiff, or the actions of the plaintiff or the defendant warrant an
urgent interim relief. The Madras high court in Prabhakar vs M/S.Saga Films 9, used the same method
to derive the meaning of the term.

10. The Madras high court in Prabhakar vs M/S.Saga Films, in its judgement, laid down certain
guidelines to be followed for what constitutes or contemplates to be known as the “Urgent interim
relief.” According to guideline (b) whether the matter demands prompt action and that promptitude is

7
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 267
8
S. 12 (A) (1), Commercial Courts act, 2015
9
Prabhakar vs M/S.Saga Films (2022) 8 SCC 369

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 12

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

of such nature that exhausting the remedy of pre institution mediation without any intervention in the
meantime can lead to a irreversible situation, i.e., a situation where one cannot put the clock back.

11. The contention of the respondents is that, this particular guideline already laid down by
the same Hon’ble court is not satisfied and therefore by looking at the same, we can understand that,
there is no urgent interim relief. Considering it has neither satisfied the literal interpretation of the term
“Urgent interim relief” nor the guideline laid down by this very Hon’ble court, it is the contention of
the respondents that, this petition is not maintainable under section 7 of the commercial courts act,
2015.

1.3) THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 12(a) OF THE COMMERCIAL

COURTS ACT,2015

12. Section 12 (a) of the commercial courts act, 2015 clearly specifies that “A suit, which does
not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff
exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as
may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.” It is clearly specified that in any case
that doesn’t warrant an urgent interim relief, there must be remedy of pre-institution mediation,
however such pre-institution mediation did not take place. In fact, to the understanding of the
respondents, the petitioner had no interest in taking part in any mediation, neither in accordance with
university guidelines and contractual obligations nor through statutory compulsion for such a petition
or suit to be filed.

13. In M/S Patil Automation Private vs Rakheja Engineers Private10, The Hon’ble Supreme
court of India held in its judgement that “to provide for compulsory mediation before institution of a
suit, where no urgent interim relief is contemplated and for this purpose, to introduce the Pre-Institution
Mediation and Settlement Mechanism and to enable the Central Government to authorise the
authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for this purpose”

10
M/S Patil Automation Private vs Rakheja Engineers Private SLP (C) No. 14697 of 2021

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 13

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

14. Considering the arguments raised before this Hon’ble court, the contention of the counsel
for the respondent is that this petition filed under section 7 of the commercial courts act, 1957 is not
maintainable as it neither satisfies the laws needed for such a case, nor does it satisfy exceptions given
to this particular law.

2) WHETHER THE THESIS WAS LITERARY WORK IN WHICH COPYRIGHT

SUBSISTED?

It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents, that the thesis by the petitioner was not a literary
work in which copyright subsisted.

2.1. THAT THE THESIS AND DISSERTIONS ARE NOT PROTECTED

15. First, to understand why we must interpret the differences in the meaning of the terms
“Dissertation” and the term “Thesis.” A Thesis critically written scholarly piece of research work.
Typically, it is submitted by students graduating from a master’s program. The purpose of a thesis is to
allow students to showcase their knowledge and expertise within the subject matter they have been
studying as part of the program. This is normally done by mainly accumulating information already
collected and assembled for educational purposes.

16. A Dissertation is a lengthier piece of scholarly writing that accounts for your research
work throughout the doctoral program. A researcher earns the Ph.D. after submitting and defending
his/her dissertation. It includes all information about the original research or expanded research on a
new or existing topic conducted by the Ph.D. candidate.

17. In both a major difference is that A thesis is a presentation of learned and existing
information, while the purpose of a dissertation is to develop a unique concept and defend it based on
theoretical and practical results.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 14

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

18. While both do require quite a bit of usage of already published information, it’s clear to
interpret from the meanings that a thesis uses far more of already used information published by the
author/researcher, while the dissertation gets more of newer concepts from the author/researcher. These
are all mainly protected or helped by the Doctrine of Fair11 dealing under section 52 1 (A) of the Indian
copyright Act, 1957.

19. This legal doctrine allows a person to use any work which is protected under the Act with
limited usage of such work to maintain the sanctity and originality of such work as well as the registered
proprietor of the work. This is how thesis and dissertations are protected.

20. However, it must be noted, that the petitioner has not used the Doctrine of Fair dealing
fairly, the petitioner has plagiarised his thesis, as seen on the plagiarism report submitted by the
university. The amount of plagiarism is staggeringly high, it is the contention of the respondents that,
from the plagiarism report, which suggests that the rate of plagiarism was 80 percent, it could be
derived that this thesis by the petitioner isn’t even an original work.

21. 80 percent plagiarism is a substantial and majority part of the thesis produced by the
petitioner, while there is no percentage specified as to what amount of plagiarism is allowed, 80 percent
is clearly not the original work of the petitioner. This removes the application of Doctrine of Fair
dealing and the Section 52 1 (a).

2.2.THAT THE LAW DOES NOT ENCOURAGE PLAGARISM

22. Moreover, since more than 50 percent of data is plagiarised from other sources, it neither
constitutes an original work, this means that the copyright does not subsist. R.G Anand vs M/S. Deluxe
Films & Ors 12 , the supreme court of India in its Ratio Decidendi had, “More dissimilarities than
similarities will indicate that there was never any intention to copy off someone else’s work.” Applying

11
S. 52 (1) (A), The Copyrights Act, 1957
12
R.G Anand vs M/S. Deluxe Films & Ors (AIR 1978 SC 1613)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 15
 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

the meaning of that statement in the literal sense, it implies when plagiarism is above 50 percent, which
is essentially more similarities than dissimilarities, there is an intention to copy of someone’s work.

23. The Plagiarism test showing 80 percent plagiarism on the part of the petitioner indicates
the same, showing this is more than the amount of plagiarism that should be allowed by the fair dealing
doctrine. Therefore, there will be no protection of copyright as the Thesis itself is not an original work.
In Shri P M Parameshwaramurthy vs State of Karnataka13 2012 (ILR 2013 KAR 209) the division
bench held that “The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral. Within academia, plagiarism by
students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud, and offenders
are subject to academic censure, up to and including expulsion. Therefore, plagiarism in short means
theft of some one's creativity, ideas, language, and it is a form of cheating. In academic circles, it is
considered as dishonesty and academic fraud. It is morally and ethically unacceptable. It shows lack of
character”.

24. In Syndicate of Press of University of Cambridge v/s Kasturi Lal and Sons14. The Delhi
High court held that “Copyright cannot be treated as a barrier against research and scholarship and
against all frontiers of human knowledge. It is true that the law should encourage enterprise, research,
and scholarship. But such encouragement cannot come at the cost of the right of an individual to protect
against the misappropriation of what is essentially a product of his intellect and ingenuity. The law
encourages innovation and improvement but not plagiarism.”

25. From the Above cases it is evident that, the morality behind plagiarism is same, copyright
does not subsist in cases of legitimate Plagiarism, the petitioner in this case has satisfied those criteria.
It is therefore the contention of the respondents that this thesis by the petitioner is not protected under
the Copyright act, 195715 as its not an original work and therefore copyright does not subsist.

13
Shri P M Parameshwaramurthy vs State of Karnataka 2012 (ILR 2013 KAR 209)
14
Syndicate of Press of University of Cambridge v/s Kasturi Lal and Sons 2006 (32) PTC 487 Del
WRITTEN
15 SUBMISSION
S. 13 (1) (a), The ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code
Copyright act, 1957 –] 16
 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

3) WHETHER THE PATENT FILED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN AUSTRALIA VIOLATED

COPYRIGHT OF MR.VIKRAM VEDHA?

26. A thesis is an academic document that presents the findings of research conducted by a
student as part of their educational program. (According to merriam webster dictionary) To determine
whether a thesis qualifies for copyright protection as a literary work, the key consideration is the
originality and expression of the content. If the thesis represents the student's independent research and
contains original analysis, arguments, or creative expression, it may be eligible for copyright
protection. Considering that there was creativity, original analysis, and expression of content but the
work conducted by Mr. Vikram Vedha was incomplete therefore further completion was required to the
project which the institution on its own initiative had completed.

27. In RG Anand V. M/S dulex films, the court said that the development of same idea in a
different manner would manifest that the source being the same, similarities are bound to occur and
hence it would not amount to copyright violation.

3.1) THAT THE PRODUCT IS PATENTABLE

28. Even though chapter II of the patents act, 1970 mainly deals about inventions not being
patentable. Section 516 of the Patents Act, 1970 which is also a part of chapter says that Inventions
where only methods or processes of manufacture are patentable. Therefore, this point clearly proves
that the patent that was claimed by the institution in Australia was valid as the was development in the
method of manufacture of paneer from Non bovine substances.

29. Non-bovine milk from animal sources contains substantial quantities of several nutrients
such as oligosaccharides, lipids, bioactive peptides, high-quality protein, minerals, and vitamins with
nutritional and health benefits. Section 3(i) 17 of the Patents Act declares that ‘any process for the
medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of human beings

16
S. 5, The Patents act, 1970
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
S. 3(i), The Patents
17
act, 1970 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 17
 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their
economic value or that of their products’ are not inventions within the meaning of the Patents Act.
Therefore, considering that the making of paneer out of non-bovine substances can be medicinal and
include health benefits, this thesis can be concluded as not an invention.

30. The same has also been backed by Article 27(3)(a)18 of the TRIPS Agreement, which
provides that members may also exclude from patentability diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical
methods for the treatment of humans or animals. Further Article 27 (1)19 of the TRIPS agreement states
that patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of
technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial
application. This would be very much applicable because Republic of Pushpa and Australia both are
signatories to the Trips agreement.

31. Continuing to the issue, the patent in Australia was granted under the Umbrella term
‘Innovation Patent ‘which essentially means an innovative step rather than an inventive step. An
innovative step exists when the invention is different from what's already known, and that difference
makes a substantial contribution to the working of the invention.

3.2) THAT THE PRODUCT VIOLATED THE COPYRIGHT OF MR. VIKRAM VEDHA?

32. Moving forward by quoting a case law from the supreme court of United States of America,
Seldon V. baker, the judgment of this case established an important principle of the present copyright
law. The aspect of the “idea-expression dichotomy” was fortified through this case law. Copyright
protection is provided only to the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. Therefore, it further
becomes clear that the institution had not violated the copyrights of Mr. Vikram Vedha as it was
expansion to the idea and the same mere expression that was used by Mr. Vedha.

33. Now if take the Clause 2.1 of the IP policy of the institution that was in place then it becomes
very clear that the university had all intellectual property belonging to them in the first place, and also

18
Art. 27 (3) (a), TRIPS Agreement, 1995
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
Art. 27 (1), TRIPS
19 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ]
Agreement, 1995 18
 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

the IP policy was a part of the institution even when Mr. Vikram Vedha had submitted his thesis, and
therefore by default by submitting his thesis he had given consent to the IP policy that was present.

34. Moving towards the Clause 3.1 of the IP policy which stated that royalty in the ratio 60:40
would be shared between the inventors and the University. To make this clear, first, the usage of the
thesis work of Mr. Vikram Vedha was not a mere usage but a development to the thesis that was
incomplete. Along with that the name of the thesis was changed from ‘Making of cottage cheese with
almond milk and soymilk’ to ‘Making paneer out of non-bovine sources’ and there was plagiarism test
that was conducted by the university before applying for the patent in Australia whose report stated
that 80% of his thesis was plagiarized. Hence the claim under Clause 3.1 does not deem fit.

35. Considering that it was an initiative that was taken by Mr. Vedha for the creation of the thesis
and that is why the university has given credits to him by stating him as a co-author in the patented
material. And hence all these facts make it clear that the patent filed by the University in Australia had
not violated copyright of Mr. Vikram Vedha.

36. Furthermore, in earlier arguments, the counsel for the respondents have established that, there
is a contractual obligation on the part of the petitioner towards the respondent, and moreover towards
the university guidelines. Clause 2.1 states that all IP belongs solely to the university. Therefore, there
is no copyright infringement on part of the respondent by filing for the patent in Australia.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 19

 INTRA-UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

PRAYER

WHEREFORE in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that,

1) This suit filed by the petitioner in the Honble High court of Madras is not maintainable before
this honble court
2) The petitioner does not get protection copyright for his thesis
3) That the University guideline clause 2.1 is binding on the petitioner and all the IP does belong
to the University/Respondent.

AND / OR pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the given case and in the light of justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

The Counsel pleads this Hon’ble Court to bind “Sacramentum habet in se tres comites, veritatem,
justitiam et judicium veritas habenda est in jurato, justitia et judicium in judice.”

And for this act of justice the Petitioner shall be duty bound and forever pray.

All of which is submitted with utmost Reverence.

Place. : ___________, Sd/-

Date : _____ July, 2023 COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [Team Code – ] 20