UChicago Law Students Win National PTAB Moot Court Competition
Matthew Corey, ’25, and Andy Wang, ’25, recently took first place in a nationwide moot court competition hosted by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This new PTAB competition, which took place virtually, centered on an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, an administrative procedure in front of the PTAB to challenge the validity of a federal patent.
Each two-person team prepared a petition and a patent owner response and then argued one of those positions in an online oral hearing against another team in front of an administrative patent judge. In addition to achieving the overall first place win—beating out forty-nine other participating law schools—the UChicago team also snagged the Best Petition award.
“We were really surprised,” said Wang about the win. “We certainly couldn’t have done it without the support we received along the way.”
Jonathan S. Masur, the John P. Wilson Professor of Law, is one of the team’s biggest supporters at the Law School.
“To win a nationwide moot court competition like this is an immensely impressive achievement,” he said. “But at some level it’s also unsurprising. Andy and Matthew were fabulous students in Patent Law, and this is merely the rest of the country catching up to what those of us at UChicago already knew about their brilliance. They both have terrific patent law careers in front of them.”
Corey and Wang’s fictional patent involved a squirrel-repellent bird feeder that spins when it detects the weight of a squirrel. The two central issues were whether the patent’s provision application had adequate written description support for the final patent and whether the invention was obvious, and therefore not patentable. As part of the experience, each team was assigned at least one coach from the PTAB. Corey and Wang were coached by Administrative Patent Judge Sharon Fenick, ’98, and Patent Attorney Kristie L. Butler-Scarpiello.
“I think our biggest strength as a team was our candidness,” reflected Wang. “Neither of us was scared to express our opinions and to speak up when we thought an argument just didn’t fly. And we were both willing to defend our positions even when the other disagreed, so the arguments that made it into our briefs had all been stress tested.”
Corey echoed this sentiment, adding, “Skepticism played a big role, too. I remember asking Andy to explain one of the arguments he came up with for written description over and over because I could not quite understand it. In the end, that really helped us to find clearer ways to explain difficult and confusing issues. I think it also helped that we were both familiar with all the arguments, despite us having divvied up the work.”
For students thinking about competing in moot court for the first time, Corey had this advice to share: “Remember that your role is to come across as a reasonable advisor to the judge. This means it is often right to make concessions on weaker arguments that can help make you more trustworthy on the points you really need to win. The other piece of advice is to get away from your notes. Oral argument is a conversation between you and the judge, not a speech, so prepare accordingly.”
Wang said that this experience reaffirmed his interest in trial work. “And now I know more about squirrels than I probably will ever need to,” he quipped.