The Patent Prosecution Highway gets more traffic

by

The European Patent Office (EPO) has commenced a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) three year pilot programme with the Malaysian and Philippines patent offices, starting 1 July 2017. Applicants whose claims have been found allowable by the EPO, the Malaysian or Philippines patent offices can now request accelerated processing of their corresponding application at the other …
>> Read more

Assignment cannot cure defect in trade mark application

In the case of Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83, Mr Pham filed a trade mark application for the trade mark on the right below (IR Trade Mark). This application was opposed by the owner of the trade mark on the left, Insight Clinical Imaging (Clinical Imaging):   …
>> Read more

Global Patent Prosecution Highway reaches the Kiwis

by

As of 6 July 2017, the New Zealand Patent Office (IPONZ) has joined the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) pilot programme.  The GPPH is an arrangement between intellectual property (IP) offices including the US, Japanese, Australian and Korean Patent Offices that allows patent applicants to request expedited examination. To request expedited examination, the follow filing …
>> Read more

Copying source code: reproducing even a small portion of source code can constitute copyright infringement.

by

In the case of IPC Global Pty Ltd v Pavetest Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 82, the Federal Court was given the difficult task of determining what was a ‘substantial part’ of the source code of a piece of software for the purposes of constituting copyright infringement. The case concerned allegations of copyright infringement …
>> Read more

Interlocutory relief for a ‘one trick pony’: clarification around the factors relevant to the court when considering interlocutory injunctions.

by

In Dincel Construction System Pty Limited v AFS Systems Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 262, the Federal Court granted interlocutory relief to a company with a single product (a so-called ‘one trick pony’) against one of the CSR group of companies. The injunction prevented AFS from marketing or selling its potentially infringing product, pending the outcome …
>> Read more

Lessons from Clipsal’s trade mark battle for the cancellation of CLIPSO

In Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 60, the Applicant, Clipsal, successfully brought action against Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd for the cancellation of its CLIPSO trade mark registration. Whilst it also succeeded in one of its two trade mark infringement claims and related causes of action, it failed …
>> Read more

‘It’s not me, it’s you.’ Terminating your business relationship.

The case of Peter Vogel Instruments Pty Ltd v Fairlight.Au Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 172 (9 December 2016) highlighted the importance of a written agreement in determining the parties’ rights when a business relationship breaks down. This case involved an agreement for Fairlight to develop software for Peter Vogel (PV) in return for four progress …
>> Read more

US giant, Valve Corporation, fined over $US2 million for its no refund policy

The Law Australia has very strong consumer protection laws, contained in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). One consumer ‘guarantee’ requires that goods be of ‘acceptable quality’ (for example, fit for purpose, free from defects etc.). This guarantee applies to goods of a kind ‘ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption’ (consumer goods) …
>> Read more