High Court of Australia Finds Claims for Isolated Genetic Material not Patentable Subject Matter
On 7 October 2015, the High Court of Australia (High Court) issued its decision[1] in the long running dispute concerning Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s (Myriad) patent relating to an isolated nucleic acid coding for mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide. Mutations in the BRCA1 gene can serve as indicators of a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.
In a unanimous decision, the High Court found that claims directed to the isolated nucleic acid are invalid on the basis that they are not a ‘manner of manufacture’ and therefore not patentable subject matter. The High Court took the view that the claimed invention would extend the scope of the concept of “manner of manufacture” and that this was not something which was appropriate for courts to do. In light of the High Court’s decision, it will be interesting to see whether there is a legislative response to this issue.
Fashion Law – Spring/Summer 2015 Edition
“Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.” Coco Chanel
We are excited to bring you the third edition of Fashion Law, highlighting important issues at the crossroads of fashion and the law.
Fashion Law gives you the latest updates on legal issues affecting your industry. This issue includes the various awards and grants available to new and emerging fashion designers, as well as what to do if your promotional images are reproduced without your permission.
Please click here to read the Spring/Summer 2015 edition of Fashion Law.
Australian High Court Rules Rosuvastatin Low Dose Patent Obvious
In an eagerly awaited decision¹ the Australian High Court has upheld a decision of a five judge bench of the Full Federal Court that AstraZeneca’s patent relating to low dosages of rosuvastatin is invalid on the basis that the claims lack an inventive step.
Section 7(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Act) as it existed at the priority date of Astra Zeneca’s patent imposed a threshold requirement that in order to be considered for assessing inventive step a document must be “ascertained, understood and regarded as relevant” by a person skilled in the art.
Is Australia’s Innovation Patent System on Borrowed Time?
On 5 August 2015, the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) released a consultation paper seeking feedback from interested stakeholders on the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property’s (ACIP) recommendation that the Australian Government should abolish the innovation patent system.
Introduced in 2001 under the Howard Government, the innovation patent system is Australia’s second tier patent right having a shorter term,eight years, and a lower threshold of invention (i.e. an ‘innovative step’ as opposed to an ‘inventive step’ required for a standard patent).
Extension of Term for Australian Patents Relating to AbbVie’s Blockbuster Drug HUMIRA Denied
In a recent decision the Australian Patent Office has rejected applications to extend the term of three patents related to the highly successful anti-inflammatory drug HUMIRA.
The patents are part of a family in which extensions of term had been granted in connection with earlier patents. These earlier extensions were based on the initial listing of HUMIRA on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Australian Court Orders Copy House to Undergo Significant Alterations: A Recent Decision on Copyright Infringement in Building Designs
Earlier this week the Supreme Court of Queensland (Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Coles v Dormer & Ors, a copyright infringement case about home designs. The Court found that a house built in an exclusive Port Douglas estate was created by copying the design of another house built close by in the same estate, and ordered that the infringing house undergo significant alterations to change its appearance.
John and Edith Bredens were prospective buyers of a home in The Sands, which had been constructed by Port Douglas Builders in accordance with plans created by designer Gregory Skyring. The Bredens were not successful in purchasing the house, which was ultimately bought by Stephen Coles, who gave evidence that he was particularly taken with the unique style of the house.
Replica Furniture: A Call to Arms
In a four-part series recently published in Habitus Living, we explore the issues faced by makers of original and authentic designs by the rise of the replica furniture industry in Australia.
The popularity of reality renovation shows has sparked interest and demand for designer furniture, homewares and lighting products. Consumers seeking such products at affordable prices have been serviced by businesses dedicated to the sale of replica furniture products that are manufactured cheaply overseas and widely available online.
Designing Fashion: How to be Inspired Not to Copy
Earlier this year, K&L Gates hosted its annual Fashion Law Breakfast in conjunction with the Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival. A fantastic panel of both fashion and legal experts divulged tips on inspiring creativity in the fashion industry and combating copyists.
Following trend forecasts and drawing inspiration from the catwalks overseas is nothing new or particularly sinister. However, there is a clear distinction between drawing inspiration and copying.
Fashion brands need to have a culture that sets clear expectations when it comes to drawing the line between inspiration and copying. Creating something new and innovative needs to be part of a fashion brand’s modus operandi. Junior designers with their fresh approach and cutting edge design skills should be encouraged to work on hero collection pieces.
Parody Marks, Reputation and ‘Misleading and Deceptive Conduct’ in Australia
In May 2013, Catchoftheday.com.au Pty Ltd applied to register the following marks:
Target Australia Pty Ltd (Target), a well known Australian retailer, opposed registration of the marks. It argued that under section 42(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), use of the Trade Marks would be contrary to law.