IP Law Watch – Page 55 – Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP

Purple is the New Orange: FDA Releases a Purple Book for Biosimilars

Sep 15 2014

On September 9, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published the first edition of the Purple Book: Lists of Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations (“Purple Book”). The Purple Book is the biological equivalent of the pharmaceutical Orange Book, and seeks to aid regulatory agents, generic manufacturers, and physicians by arming them with information related to biological products such as biosimilars including, for example, providing information regarding the interchangeability of products. Read More

Australian Patent Examination Reports Issuing Faster Than Expected in Some Technology Areas

Sep 12 2014

Prior to commencement of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012, which came into effect in April 2013, the Australian Patent Office was inundated with requests for examination from applicants wishing to have their applications examined under the current law.

This flood of examination requests led the Patent Office to last year advise that first examination reports would likely issue, on average, about 19 months after examination is requested. We have recently been advised by the Patent Office that the backlog of applications awaiting examination is starting to clear and that examination reports are now issuing, on average, about 16 months after examination is requested. Read More

Not a Free For All on Compilations! Big Additional Damages Payout

Sep 11 2014

Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (No.3) [2014] FCA 909

In the liability hearing of this matter (Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (2001) 91 IPR 488) Justice Yates found that:

the respondent, Tonnex, had infringed the copyright owned by the applicant, Dynamic, in a computer compatibility chart for printer and computer consumables called the ‘March 2008 CSV file’ (Copyright Work) in breach of the Copyright Act 1968 by reproducing a substantial part of the Copyright Work in its document called ‘Tonnex 2008’
Tonnex had contravened ss 52, 53(c) and 53(eb) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

No Interlocutory Injunction? No Sweat

Sep 09 2014

Unilever Australia Ltd v Revlon Australia Pty Ltd (no.2) [2014] FCA 875

This case is the latest skirmish between two personal product giants, Unilever and Revlon, before war breaks out on 15 September 2014 when the trial begins.

The case concerns ‘clinical’ anti-perspirant deodorant products; Revlon’s product sold under the brand name Mitchum Clinical and Unilever’s products sold under the brand names ‘Rexona’ and ‘Dove’.

The first interlocutory injunction hearing was brought by Unilever against Revlon in May 2014 concerned misleading representations alleged to have been made by Revlon in advertising. On balance, the Court refused to grant the injunction as it would have a serious adverse impact on the worldwide marketing campaign for Revlon and the trial could be held in July 2014. The July trial was eventually adjourned to 15 September 2014. Read More

Australian Courts Confirm Status Quo for Patenting Gene Sequences

Sep 05 2014

Today, a five-judge bench of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia unanimously decided that Myriad Genetics Inc’s (Myriad) patent covering the isolated BRCA1 gene (Patent) is valid.

In Yvonne D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor (5 September 2014) the Full Federal Court rejected the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court, when it found in 2013 that certain claims of a closely related U.S. Patent of Myriad were invalid as the claim to isolated nucleic acid was a claim to a “product of nature” and not patentable subject matter.

For the pro-patent lobby and the biotech industry, this is good news for innovation in life sciences in Australia.

PTO Seeks to Improve Patent Quality

Sep 04 2014

At the same time that it announced an almost 50% reduction in its backlog of request for continued examinations over the past year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a new initiative to improve patent quality. During the quarterly Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) meeting in August, USPTO Commissioner for Patents, Peggy Focarino, said the new focus on quality was a result of the PTO approaching optimal steady state application pendency and the AIA creating a sustainable fee reserve to fund such initiatives. Read More

On Tap at the U.S. Supreme Court: An Important Trademark Case

Sep 03 2014

During its next term, which begins in October 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court will continue to decide important intellectual property cases.

In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., the Court will tackle an issue that has long vexed trademark owners and their lawyers: ‘how much deference to give determinations by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the issue of likelihood of confusion, when a subsequent infringement action is brought in federal court?’. In other words, must a court accept the TTAB’s decision on likelihood of confusion, even though the TTAB’s jurisdiction is limited to a trademark’s registrability? Read More

Are you Ready for Commencement of New Zealand’s New Patents Act?

Aug 30 2014

New Zealand patent law has been completely overhauled and modernised. Details of the changes can be found here. The new law commences on 13 September 2014, which is only two weeks away!

The new provisions raise the requirements for patentability and the requirements for patent specifications and bring New Zealand patent law into substantial conformity with the patent laws of other developed countries, such as Australia. Among the new provisions is a provision which denies patentability to alleged inventions where the contribution to the art lies solely in it being a computer program. Read More

AstraZeneca Loses Latest Bout Over Rosuvastatin Patents

Aug 12 2014

The Full Federal Court of Australia has upheld the first instance judgment of the Federal Court of Australia that the three patents protecting AstraZenica’s rosuvastatin products (marketed as Crestor) are invalid.

In judgment handed down on 12 August 2014, the court unanimously dismissed the appeals by AstraZeneca against generic pharmaceutical companies Apotex Pty Ltd, Watson Pharma Pty Ltd and Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd. Read More

A Second Helping of Kebab

Aug 11 2014

Additional Damages for Past Trade Mark Infringements

In June 2014 the Federal Court made its first award of additional damages for trade mark infringement under the ‘Raising the Bar’ amendments to the Trade Marks Act 1995 (TM Act). We reported on the original judgment in our 23 June 2014 alert, which you can find here.

Today, the Federal Court of Australia handed down another judgment in that case. This second judgement suggests that additional damages may also be available for trade mark infringements that occurred before 15 April 2013.