Category Archive for: ‘Litigation and procedure’
A recent .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“auDRP”) dispute involving GM Holden Ltd (“GM Holden”) highlights the relevance of a pattern of behaviour in determining whether domain names have been registered in good faith. In this case, the fact that the respondent had also registered domain names that included brands such as Toyota, Ford and Chrysler was used to support a finding that the domain names in question had not been registered in good faith.
A majority of the US Supreme Court handed down a decision yesterday which draws a fuzzy line between valid patents which claim business methods and invalid ones which merely claim abstract ideas. The decision, Bilski v Kappos, can be found here.
The saga between the University of Western Australia, Sirtex Medical Ltd and Dr Bruce Gray appears to be drawing to a close. The Federal Court has now determined that Sirtex is entitled to recover just under $3 million in damages from its former director and shareholder, Dr Gray. Click here to access the decision.
In the latest Federal Court judgment dealing with issues in the ongoing trade mark dispute between Food Channel Network Pty Ltd and Television Food Network GP, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that the party opposing the registration of a trade mark bears the onus of proving a successful ground of opposition on appeal to the Court.
An amici curiae brief has been filed by a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School on behalf of 86 other professors of Law, Economics, Business and Public Policy in relation to the appropriate treatment of reverse settlement agreements. The professors seek to be heard by the Full Court of Appeals in their review of reverse settlements of patent disputes, which involve the patentee paying a would-be infringer to stay out of the market, and to not challenge the validity of the patent.
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invites examination of reverse settlement agreements by the Full Court of Appeals
Further to our 18 May post in relation to the FTC’s anti-trust case against Cephalon concerning the reverse settlement of a patent dispute over Provigil, a US Court of Appeals has taken the unusual step of inviting a petition to the Full Court of Appeals to consider the “difficult questions at issue and the important interests at stake” when considering reverse settlement agreements.
For our readers keen to plan ahead, it will soon be time to stay close to Twitter and refresh those RSS feeds. This is because the August 2010 sittings of the Full Court of the Federal Court have fixed for hearing at least two significant IP cases. At a recent call over, the Federal Court fixed Roadshow Films and Others v iiNet for the 2 August sittings. Likewise, Telstra & Sensis v Phone Directories Company and Ors has also been listed for the same hearing period. Specific dates have not yet been allocated, but as soon as IP Whiteboard knows, you will too.
On 12 February we reported that UWA had failed in its application for special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s decision in University of Western Australia v Gray  FCAFC 116. The High Court’s refusal to hear an appeal means that the Full Federal Court’s decision (that Dr Gray owns the IP in cancer-fighting microspheres developed over a
The University of Western Australia’s application for special leave to appeal was heard in Sydney this morning and early reports are saying that the High Court has refused special leave.