Australia – Page 10 – IP Law Watch

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.

Productivity Commission’s broad IP review in Australia – Submissions due 30 November

Nov 20 2015

By Naomi Pearce

There are two weeks left to make submissions to the Productivity Commission (the Commission) on the Commission’s Intellectual Property Issues Paper published in October.

The IP Issues Paper can be found here and the process for making a submission (by 30 November) is outlined here.

Australian Patent Office Seeks Comment on Proposed Examination Practice Arising from the Myriad Genetics High Court Decision

Nov 06 2015

By Rachel Young and Nigel Lokan

The Australian Patent Office has commenced a public consultation on their proposed changes to examination practice, as a result of the recent High Court decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc¹.

As reported in our earlier blog² the High Court unanimously decided that claims directed to an isolated nucleic acid coding for mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide were not patentable subject matter.

High Court of Australia Finds Claims for Isolated Genetic Material not Patentable Subject Matter

Oct 08 2015

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

Sep 30 2015

“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.

Sydney Fashion Law Breakfast – Thursday 15 October

Sep 23 2015

How close is too close? Trends, inspirations and courts – where is the line between paying homage and knocking off someone else’s design?

K&L Gates invites you to our Fashion Law Breakfast on Thursday 15 October to explore the ins and outs of copying in the fashion industry, including tips on how to avoid getting into hot water and the legal options available to designers who discover that their creations have been copied. A panel of fashion industry and legal experts will discuss the role of trends in creating designs and address the difference between being inspired and being liable for copying.

Australian High Court Rules Rosuvastatin Low Dose Patent Obvious

Sep 16 2015

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.

Ali Baba Launches a New Platform to Fight Counterfeiters

Aug 26 2015

The online marketplace continues to generate a vast number of fresh opportunities for businesses, such as the opening up of global trade channels to manufacturers and retailers that were previously restricted to their own local market. However, these opportunities come with very real risks and traders are becoming increasingly concerned about the sale of counterfeit goods through eCommerce stores such as Ali Express and the sale of re-branded copied goods through B2B websites such as Tao Bao.

Is Australia’s Innovation Patent System on Borrowed Time?

Aug 19 2015

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).

Tag:Australia