December 2015 – IP Law Watch

The end for the Dallas Buyers Club Dispute and Speculative Invoicing? Or is it Just the Beginning.

Dec 18 2015

On 16 December 2015, another chapter (and perhaps the final chapter) closed in the long running dispute between the rights holder of the film Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) and six Australian ISPs. Justice Perram of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed DBC’s application for preliminary discovery of the identities of over 4,000 Australian BitTorrent users who allegedly shared copies of the film.

As we reported in April 2015 (see here), Justice Perram initially ruled in favour of DBC ordering six ISPs to disclose the details of 4,726 customers. However, the Court was concerned this information would be used to write to account holders making demands for payments very much excess of what might actually be recovered in any actual suit (a practice known as “speculative invoicing”). To address this concern, the Court adopted the novel approach of making the release of account holder information conditional on DBC submitting for the Court’s approval a draft of the letter of demand proposed to be sent to the relevant account holders.

EU Trade Mark Law Reform – Final Legislative Approval Completed

Dec 17 2015

By Arthur Artinian and Scott Steinberg

Further to alert of 11 June 2015 (here) and recent webinar covering the major developments affecting international brand owners (here), the proposals to amend the Community Trade Mark Regulation and Trade Mark Directive were adopted at second reading by the European Parliament on 15 December 2015. This was the final approval required at EU level and follows the Council adopting its position at first reading on 10 November 2015.

The Regulation will to enter into force 90 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, and this is expected in February or March 2016. The Directive will enter into force 20 days after publication and must be implemented by Member States into national law within 3 years. Some provisions relating to administrative invalidity and revocation procedures may be implemented within 7 years.

Pendulum Swings in Favour of Generic/Biosimilar Companies at Interlocutory Stage in AU

Dec 09 2015

By Naomi Pearce

FCA Confirms Commonwealth may Claim Relief Under “Usual Undertakings as to Damages”

The much anticipated Court of Appeal decision in Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi ¹ was handed down on Monday. The decision is a win for the Commonwealth, and for generic/biosimilar companies in Australia, and (if upheld in any appeal) will result in Sponsors adopting a more circumspect approach to seeking interlocutory injunctions for patent infringement in Australia.

Except where a generic/biosimilar applicant has “cleared the way” (cleared any patent impediments to launch through the Courts in Australia) or all relevant patents have expired, interlocutory injunctions are routinely sought by the Sponsor, and are routinely granted.

Australian Patent Office Decides First Opposition Under Raising The Bar Act

Dec 08 2015

By Nigel Lokan

In the matter of CSR Building Products Limited v. United States Gypsum Company¹ the Australian Patent Office has heard and decided the first patent opposition in which the provisions of the IP Laws Amendment Act 2012 (Raising the Bar Act) apply.

The Raising the Bar Act introduced a number of changes to the Australian patent legislation with the intent of raising the standard required to support the grant of a patent and to bring Australia’s patent laws into line with those of its major trading partners. The Raising the Bar Act applies to all patent applications for which a request for examination was filed on or after 15 April 2013.

Archive:December 2015