Category Archive for: ‘Patents’
The Federal Government has proposed changes to the innovation patent system, and is seeking public comment. The proposed amendments would require innovation patent applications to demonstrate the same level of inventive step as a standard patent. In 2001, the Patents Act 1990 was amended to create a new lesser class of patents to replace petty patents called “innovation patents”, intended to …
While effective patent law protects the financial returns on investment in R&D, thereby encouraging more people to invent new things, ineffective patent law can create roadblocks to innovation as patent owners exclude competitors from using and developing their inventions.
Last month, yoga-gear guru Lululemon Athletica Inc filed a lawsuit in the US Federal Court in Delaware against PVH Corp’s Calvin Klein brand and G-III Apparel Group alleging infringement of three “design patents” (the US term for registered designs) relating to the design of its famous yoga pants. Lululemon’s design patents relate to the v-shaped waistband which features on its flagship product.
The Swiss drug company Novartis has been involved in a long-running battle (since 2006) for an Indian patent for imatinib mesylate which is the leukaemia drug known as Glivec (Gleevec in the US). Glivec has shown success in turning deadly chronic myelogenous leukaemia into a manageable chronic disease for patients. Novartis developed a predecessor compound to imatinib mesylate in the …
In March this year, the US Court of Appeals was ordered by the US Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics (see our previous post).
On 25 July 2012, the EC alleged that Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck violated EU antitrust rules by colluding to prevent other pharma companies from marketing generic versions of its best-seller antidepressant, citalopram. Lundbeck is alleged to have:
Despite recent Supreme Court authority on the issue, a judgment of the US Federal Circuit handed down on 9 July 2012 reveals that the test for patent eligibility is far from settled in the United States.
In a rare moment of consensus in Europe, last week EU member states agreed to create a Unitary Patent Central Court accompanied by two sector specific Courts.
Paris will host the central division of the unitary patent court, while mechanical engineering cases will be heard in Munich and chemistry and human necessities (including pharmaceutical cases) will be heard in London.
In what was a busy year for patent law in Australia, 2011 saw the Full Federal Court overturning an interlocutory injunction in the much publicised Apple v Samsung saga (relating to Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1) while the Federal Court was busy handing down a number of other important decisions on infringement – including authorisation and indirect infringement, and invalidity – with significant developments in novelty and ‘whole of contents’ documents, as well as fair basis.