IP Law Watch – Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP

Busted! Melbourne International Film Festival Director Subject to Urgent Interlocutory Injunction Over Moral Rights

Aug 12 2025

On 6 August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) ordered that Projector Films Pty Ltd and director David Ngo (the Respondents) be stopped from promoting, causing to promote or authorising the Melbourne International Film Festival (the MIFF) to show the documentary titled “Never Get Busted!” unless the Applicant Stephen McCallum was attributed as “Principal Director.”

Karen Walker Has a Runaway Win Before the Trade Marks Office

Aug 11 2025

In a recent decision of the Australian Trade Marks Office, Karen Walker Limited successfully opposed the registration of the mark ‘Runaway the Label‘ for clothing, footwear and headgear (class 25) and online retail services (class 35). We focus here on Delegate’s findings on deceptive similarity under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

Let’s Make it a Date–Best Method and the Filing Date of the Earliest Complete Application

Aug 11 2025

In the recent decision of NOCO Company v. Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887¹, Moshinsky J has provided welcomed clarity around the relevant date by which the best method known to the applicant is to be identified for divisional patent applications. Namely, the relevant date is the date from which the term of the patent is calculated. This means that for divisional patent applications, it is the filing date of the earliest complete or PCT application, not the individual filing date of each divisional application. And thus, it is at the time of filing the PCT application that the best method known to the applicant needs to be included in the specification.

Life After Skykick: UKIPO Issued New Guidelines

Aug 06 2025

Following the Sky v. SkyKick judgement, issued in December 2024, the UKIPO has now issued a practice note providing applicants with guidance on drafting and filing trade mark applications in the UK. Sky v SkyKick highlighted that filing an application for unduly broad specifications of goods and services with no genuine intention to use the mark can constitute bad faith and applicants are now provided with the tools to avoid the most common pitfalls.

Optional Refrigeration Freezes Induced Patent Infringement Claim

Aug 01 2025

By: Peter Giunta and Sarika Madan

In Metacel Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Rubicon Research Private Ltd., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the optional product storage temperatures stated in Rubicon’s proposed generic product label did not induce infringement of US Patent No. 10,610,502 because Rubicon’s proposed label only optionally permits the refrigeration storage claimed by Metacel’s patent, and clearly instructs room temperature storage.¹In so holding, the CAFC affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.²

USPTO Director Ends IPR Against Midas Green Technologies

Jul 27 2025

On 25 July 2025, K&L Gates secured an important win for its client, Midas Green Technologies, LLC. Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director review and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Midas Green’s competitor, Green Revolution Cooling, Inc., which had sought to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 10,405,457—currently being asserted by Midas Green in a parallel lawsuit pending in the Western District of Texas. The patent describes a modular immersion cooling system that circulates dielectric fluid to cool vertically mounted electronic appliances, such as computer servers, in a tank.

Return to In-Person Patent Trial and Appeal Board Hearings

Jul 23 2025

Effective 1 September 2025, all hearings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will be conducted in person. Parties involved must attend these hearings physically and in person unless they can demonstrate a valid reason for not doing so. Acceptable justifications typically include situations such as significant financial difficulty for the arguing attorneys, medical issues, or similar substantial barriers to travel.

New Aim Misses the Mark: Federal Court Clarifies What Constitutes Confidential Information

Jul 21 2025

The recent decision of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) is a timely reminder of how confidential information needs to be treated and restricted by businesses to allow it to be protected under law.

EU Designs: Genuine Design Activity and Intellectual Effort are not Required for Protection

Jul 18 2025

Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has delivered his opinion in the case Deity Shoes, S.L. v Mundorama Confort, S.L. and another (Case C 323/24). The case considers whether a footwear design made by Deity Shoes, S.L. (Deity Shoes) qualified for protection as a design in the European Union and raised important questions about the relevance of the status of the designer’s effort and skill and surrounding factors in the assessment of design.

Brand Guardians: Effective Strategies Against Cyber Counterfeiting: Part 2

Jul 16 2025

Our first article in this series highlighted the financial and reputational damage counterfeiting causes to brand owners and the significant societal consequences associated with the reproduction, sale and dissemination of counterfeit products around the globe. We looked at how having strong Intellectual Property (IP) protection, selling through social or e-commerce platforms that have rigorous seller verification processes and educating consumers, retail and social platforms about the difference between genuine and counterfeit products, are all fundamental strategies which can be effective in the fight against online counterfeiting. Supplementing these steps with strategic enforcement action and IP protection measures are equally important.