Australia – Page 14 – IP Law Watch

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.

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.

Permitted Trade Mark Usage as Google AdText

Jul 21 2014

Google AdWords Policy Change for Australia

As reported in April 2013, Google amended its AdWords policy in Australia allowing a company to purchase a competitor’s trade mark as a keyword in order to trigger sponsored ads during Google searches.

Google has now gone one step further and allowed resellers and informational sites from 27 July 2014 to use trade marks in ad text in Australia and New Zealand under certain circumstances. Read More

IP Haiku: Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 418

Jul 15 2014

Your IP Law Report in 17 Syllables

“Judgments are just getting longer and more complicated, I can’t keep up with all of them!”

A familiar refrain uttered by many a lawyer and law student alike, especially in the modern, digital age (although we expect the Courts might refer to the increasing volume of electronic evidence filed by parties in proceedings as a contributing factor!)

So, in that context, could the essence of a judgment be distilled into haiku (short form Japanese poetry consisting of three phrases of five, seven and five syllables)? Well, we are sure going to try! Read More

Ensure That Stock Photos are Licensed

Jul 10 2014

Although acknowledging the ease of copying photographs on the internet, an Australian Court has warned through the publication of its decision that this copying should not continue. In the case of Tylor v Sevin, a Hawaii, U.S., based photographer sued a Melbourne, Australia, based travel agent regarding a photograph he took titled ‘Waikaki Pink Boat’. The travel agent used the photograph on its website promoting holidays to Hawaii.

After being put on notice of the case, the travel agent refused to take down the photograph or offer to pay a licence fee. Read More

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

Tag:Australia