What level of students is this competition designed for?

The event is open to college-level students.

The Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot 2026

Mar 25–28, 2026Oxford, United KingdomIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot is a prestigious competition held in Oxford, GBR. It brings together university students from around the world to engage with complex issues in intellectual property law. Participants hone their advocacy skills by presenting arguments before panels of distinguished judges and legal experts. This event is designed to foster a deeper understanding of intellectual property's evolving landscape and its global implications. It serves as a vital platform for future legal professionals to develop critical thinking and oral advocacy in a specialized and rapidly changing field.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

United Kingdom

A key jurisdiction for intellectual property law, balancing innovation protection with public access.

Role in topic

As the host country, GBR plays a significant role in shaping international intellectual property discourse, with its legal system often influencing global standards and practices. Its courts frequently handle complex intellectual property disputes, contributing to a rich body of jurisprudence.

United States

A global leader in intellectual property creation and enforcement, with a robust legal framework.

Role in topic

USA is a major player in intellectual property, particularly in technology and entertainment. Its strong patent, copyright, and trademark laws, along with significant enforcement efforts, often set benchmarks and provoke international debate on intellectual property rights.

China

Rapidly evolving intellectual property landscape, transitioning from a focus on manufacturing to innovation.

Role in topic

CHN's intellectual property system has undergone significant reforms and growth. While historically associated with intellectual property challenges, it is increasingly emphasizing domestic innovation and strengthening its intellectual property protection mechanisms, making it a critical actor in global intellectual property discussions.

Germany

Strong advocate for robust intellectual property protection, particularly in industrial design and patents.

Role in topic

DEU is a leading force in European intellectual property law, known for its strong patent system and emphasis on industrial property rights. Its legal framework and judicial decisions often influence intellectual property policy across the European Union.

India

Navigating intellectual property rights with a focus on public health and access to essential goods.

Role in topic

IND's intellectual property regime often balances the protection of intellectual property rights with public interest concerns, especially in areas like pharmaceuticals. Its approach to compulsory licensing and patentability criteria is a significant point of discussion in international intellectual property forums.

Topics & background

The history behind each committee topic and the states that shape it.

Intellectual Property Law: Frameworks and Frontiers

Modern intellectual property law traces its multilateral foundations to the Paris Convention (1883) on industrial property and the Berne Convention (1886) on literary and artistic works, both administered today by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The framework was substantially globalised by the 1994 TRIPS Agreement under the WTO, which established minimum standards for patents, copyrights, trademarks, designs and trade secrets binding on all member states. Subsequent instruments, including the WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996), the Marrakesh Treaty (2013), and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (2012), have extended protection into digital and performance contexts. The core dispute in contemporary IP law concerns the balance between exclusive rights and public interest access. Disagreements persist between developed economies, which favour strong protection to incentivise innovation, and developing states seeking flexibilities for medicines, education and technology transfer — tensions visible in the COVID-19 TRIPS waiver debate (2020-2022) and ongoing negotiations on a WIPO treaty on genetic resources and traditional knowledge, adopted in May 2024. Generative AI, platform liability, and cross-border enforcement now sit at the frontier of doctrinal development, prompting courts in the UK, EU, US and India to revisit foundational concepts of authorship, originality and infringement.

Key players

Breach of Confidence

Breach of confidence is an equitable doctrine developed primarily in English common law, with its modern formulation crystallised in Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969], which set the three-part test: information possessing the necessary quality of confidence, imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and unauthorised use to the detriment of the confider. Originally rooted in cases such as Prince Albert v Strange (1849) and Saltman Engineering v Campbell (1948), the action long served as the principal protection for trade secrets, personal information and pre-contractual disclosures in jurisdictions without a general privacy tort. The doctrine has since bifurcated. Following Campbell v MGN [2004] and the absorption of ECHR Article 8 into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998, breach of confidence concerning personal information evolved into a distinct tort of misuse of private information. Commercial confidentiality, meanwhile, has been partially codified: the EU Trade Secrets Directive (2016/943) and the UK Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 align European protection with TRIPS Article 39, while the US Defend Trade Secrets Act 2016 federalised civil remedies. Today contested questions include the threshold for 'springboard' relief, the treatment of AI training data scraped under implied confidence, employee mobility, and the interaction with whistleblower protections under instruments such as EU Directive 2019/1937.

Key players

Contracts in Restraint of Trade

The restraint of trade doctrine originated in English common law with Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) and was authoritatively restated by the House of Lords in Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co [1894], which established that all restraints are prima facie void unless reasonable as between the parties and not contrary to the public interest. The doctrine was further developed in Esso Petroleum v Harper's Garage [1968] and, most recently in the UK, in Tillman v Egon Zehnder [2019], where the Supreme Court clarified the severance test for unreasonable post-termination covenants. The contemporary dispute centres on the doctrine's application to modern labour markets and IP-adjacent contexts. Non-compete clauses, non-solicitation covenants, and exclusive-dealing arrangements increasingly intersect with trade secret protection, employee mobility and innovation policy. The US Federal Trade Commission's 2024 rule banning most non-competes (subsequently struck down by a Texas district court), the UK government's 2023 proposal to cap non-competes at three months, and divergent approaches across EU member states reflect a global re-examination of where legitimate protectable interest ends and anti-competitive restraint begins. The IP dimension is particularly acute where covenants are used to protect confidential information, know-how, or goodwill associated with licensed rights.

Key players

Performers' Moral Rights

Moral rights — the personal, non-economic rights of attribution and integrity — were first recognised for authors under Article 6bis of the Berne Convention (1928 Rome revision). Performers, however, were historically protected only economically, under the Rome Convention (1961) and the WTO TRIPS Agreement (1994), which omitted moral rights from performers' protection. This gap was addressed by the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996), whose Article 5 granted performers moral rights in live aural performances and those fixed in phonograms, and decisively by the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (2012, in force 2020), which extended moral rights of attribution and integrity to audiovisual performances. Implementation remains uneven. The UK introduced performers' moral rights via the Performances (Moral Rights, etc.) Regulations 2006, but with significant carve-outs; the US, which acceded to Berne in 1989 without enacting general moral rights legislation, has not joined the Beijing Treaty and relies on contract, Lanham Act and state-law analogues. Civil law jurisdictions such as France, Germany and Japan provide robust statutory protection. Live controversies include the application of integrity rights to AI-generated deepfakes and voice clones of performers, the duration and waivability of these rights, and their interaction with collective bargaining in the film and music industries — issues sharpened by the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike and ongoing legislative responses such as the proposed US NO FAKES Act.

Key players