A recent decision of the patent office, Merial, Inc. v Bayer New Zealand Limited [2018] APO 14, has again highlighted the hazards of failing to “disclose the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention”, as required by section 40(2)(aa) of the Australian Patents Act. The facts of the case Opposed application AU2014201152 …
>> Read more
The Full Federal Court has recently considered what level of disclosure is needed in a patent specification in order that it “describes the invention fully” as required by Section (40)(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1990, prior to being amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising The Bar) Act 2012. In Warner-Lambert Company LLC v …
>> Read more
With the Australian Grand Prix returning in March, Melbourne will once again play host to the fastest race cars in the world. For some, the race is the engineering Olympics. An action-packed sporting spectacular, each car on the grid representing decades of hard-fought improvements in material, mechanical, safety and software engineering all of which embodied …
>> Read more
In many jurisdictions, damages as a remedy for infringement are not available or are reduced where the infringer proves they were an ‘innocent infringer’. An ‘innocent infringer’ is not aware of the existence of a registered IP right at the time of the infringement and had no reasonable grounds for supposing that the subject matter …
>> Read more
Today the Australian Government released its response to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into Australia’s IP system. Both the Productivity Commission and the former Advisory Council on Intellectual Property had recommended that the innovation patent system be abolished, a recommendation that the Australian government has supported. An innovation patent requires a lower level of innovation than …
>> Read more
The Australian Government has released its response to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into Australia’s IP system. The report may be found here. The Government has made a number of recommendations across Australia’s intellectual property system. While the implementation of the recommendations will be some time away, some dramatic changes are proposed. Perhaps the most significant …
>> Read more
A Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia has overturned an earlier decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AATA) and ruled that Swiss-style claims relating to pharmaceutical substances produced using recombinant DNA technology are not eligible for patent term extension. The decision in Commissioner of Patents v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd[1] relates to three Patents …
>> Read more
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
Following the decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc (“D’Arcy”), in which the High Court of Australia unanimously decided that claims to isolated nucleic acids represent information coding for a polypeptide and as such do not define a ‘manner of manufacture’ (and are therefore not patent eligible), IP Australia now have issued their proposed practice …
>> Read more
An Australian Intellectual Property Litigation Round-Up from the Commonwealth Courts portal for 27 July to 31 July 2015. We advise our clients (whether as IP owners or as alleged infringers) and act for them in relation to patent litigation, trade mark litigation, registered design litigation, domain name, plant breeder’s rights, confidential information and copyright litigation. …
>> Read more
