Patents – Page 17 – IP Law Watch

Act Promptly and Diligently When Preparing Evidence in Patent Oppositions or Else…

Jul 09 2014

A recent decision of the Australian Patent Office has underscored the importance of acting promptly and diligently at all times when preparing evidence in patent oppositions.

In this case the patent applicant was unable to complete and serve its evidence-in-support and sought an extension of time in which to do so. The Commissioner’s delegate considered the conduct of the patent applicant throughout the period provided for service of the evidence and decided that the patent applicant had not acted promptly and diligently at all times. Read More

Software Is Still Patentable, With Caveats

Jun 20 2014

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion on software and business method patents in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, et al. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held all of Alice’s claims to be ineligible for patenting. The decision tightens the standards for patent eligibility but does not eliminate software patents or computer-implemented business methods. Read More

Australia Joins the Global Patent Prosecution Highway

Jan 17 2014

What is the Global Patent Prosecution Highway?

The Australian Patent Office is one of 13 patent offices from around the globe that have joined forces to create a Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) pilot program, which commenced on 6 January 2014.

Under the GPPH pilot program – where an applicant receives a ruling from a participating patent office that at least one claim in a patent application is allowable – the applicant may request that another participating patent office accelerate examination of a corresponding patent application. Read More

Breaking News – High Court of Australia Confirms That Methods of Medical Treatment are Patentable

Dec 05 2013

Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 50

The High Court of Australia yesterday issued its long awaited decision in a dispute between Apotex Pty Ltd (Apotex) and Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd and related entities (collectively, Sanofi) concerning Sanofi’s Australian patent entitled “Pharmaceutical for the treatment of skin disorders” (Patent). In summary:

The majority (French CJ, Crennan, Keifel and Gageler JJ, Hayne J dissenting) held that assuming all other requirements for patentability are met, a method (or process) for medical treatment of the human body can be a “manner of manufacture” and therefore patentable for the purposes of section 18 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). Read More

Category:Patents