Court Decisions – Page 16

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).

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.

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

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

That’s “a Lot of Kebab”!

Jun 23 2014

Additional Damages Awarded for Trade Mark Infringement

Trade mark owners can take encouragement from the Federal Court of Australia’s readiness to award additional damages as a deterrent from further infringement. The Court made its first award of additional damages for trade mark infringement in a case about kebabs, where a claim for actual loss from an infringement could not be made. Additional damages are a useful weapon in a brand owner’s arsenal. Read More

Local Directories Wins in Telstra Dispute Over Yellow

Jun 20 2014

It is very difficult for companies to effectively own colour, as was enforced in Local Directories’ Federal Court victory in its long running dispute against Telstra. Telstra claimed that by its use of the colour yellow for phone directories, Local Directories had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off. The Court dismissed these claims and upheld that Telstra’s advertisements published in certain Yellow Pages directories were in fact misleading. 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

Dick Smith Loses OZEMITE Trade Mark – Appeal Pending!

May 01 2014

Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith is famous for supporting Australian businesses that grow and produce products. One of the products he is associated with is ‘OZEMITE’, which was supposed to be a yeast based product similar to the Australian icon ‘Vegemite‘ (for our U.S. based readers, it is said that no Australian will travel anywhere in the world without a jar of Vegemite in their luggage – it is a national icon, like the kangaroo). 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

Tag:Court Decisions