Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP.
On 19 January 2025 the USPTO enacted a new Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) size fee. A new IDS size fee, codified under 37 C.F.R. 1.17(v), is accrued for any pending application when the number of cumulative references cited by the applicant exceeds each of 50, 100, and 200 references (hereinafter, “IDS Size Fee”).
Read MoreIn Dei Gratia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2024] FCA 1145 (Dei Gratia), the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by Dei Gratia and confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Patents to refuse the patent application for ‘last mile logistics’. The claimed invention purported to facilitate the delivery of goods from the last point in a distribution chain to end consumers. By selecting a preferred local outlet, customers would be able to overcome delivery issues such as the need to be at home at a specific time and the protection of perishable goods that have been left at doors in high temperatures.
Read MoreFinding against Zoetis, the Full Federal Court held that Zoetis’ three patent applications relating to pig vaccines were invalid due to the failure to disclose the best method.
Read MoreOn 20 March 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as “Informative” the majority opinion in the Decision Denying Institution in IPR2024-00952, a decision originally entered on December 13, 2024.
Read MoreBy: Arthur Artinian, Simon Casinader, and Georgina Rigg
Everybody knows that trade marks are necessary to protect a brand’s logo and name, and a lot of people know that registered designs are a powerful tool in stopping counterfeit goods, but did you know these rights can also be used to help protect against unwanted “dupes” (also known as “copycat” or “lookalike” products)? Dupes and copycats deliberately mimic a successful product, and they imitate the look and feel to unfairly benefit from the goodwill attached to the product through the “halo effect,” i.e., the impression that if it looks like the original, it must be as good.
Read MoreOn 20 February 2025, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) delivered a landmark ruling in a case concerning the copyright protection of Birkenstock sandals. In its decision, the BGH firmly rejected the claim that Birkenstock’s sandal designs qualify for copyright as “applied art” under German copyright law. This judgment not only clarifies the scope of protection for industrial design works but also contrasts with prior rulings from regional courts in Hamburg and Cologne, highlighting the challenges of determining what constitutes “creative” or “artistic” design in functional products.
Read MoreThe Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Unitary Patent, which launched on 1 June 2023, marked a historic milestone, allowing for the enforcement of patents across borders via a single court. The UPC has now issued its first Annual Report.
Read MoreIn the recent decision of Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the long-standing approach concerning the interpretation of the domestic-industry requirement under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complainant, an American company importing eyelash extensions from international manufacturers, which alleged that certain other importers were infringing on its patents.
Read MoreBusiness owners should be aware of a new email scam circulating impersonating an intellectual property (IP) representative, containing false information, and offering trademark assistance. This nefarious email scam is sent by an operator impersonating a known Australia registered patent and/or trade mark attorney to garner legitimacy. IP Australia has provided an example of the scam and both IP Australia and the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys (IPTA) continue to publish alerts regarding this issue.
Read MoreOn 20 January 2025, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in a highly anticipated appeal by Thatchers Cider Company, concluding that Aldi had infringed Thatchers’ registered trade mark under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, by taking unfair advantage of Thatchers’ packaging trade mark (see comparison below).
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.