Category Archive for: ‘Patents’
On 18 September 2009, the Treasurer and Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research released a consultation paper on the new research and development tax incentive. The incentive, announced as part of the 2009-2010 Budget, represents a significant change to the taxation of R&D expenditure in Australia.
Mallesons has published an alert on the Full Court decision, available here.
UPDATE: The Full Federal Court has dismissed the appeal.
On 25 August 2009 Justice Kenny handed down her decision in Medrad Inc v Alpine Medical Pty Ltd  FCA 949. Her Honour granted an injunction to the applicant (represented by Mallesons) restraining the respondents from selling certain disposable syringes in Australia. In doing so, Justice Kenny refuted that it was the practice of the court to refuse an interlocutory injunction where the validity of a patent is being challenged.
Advisory Council on Intellectual Property releases Interim Report on Post-Grant Patent Enforcement Strategies
The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property has released an Interim Report on Post-Grant Enforcement Strategies proposing a number of reforms, including the establishment of an IP dispute resolution centre to provide opinions in relation to validity and infringement issues, and public access to information in relation to patent related Court proceedings. The Advisory Council is seeking submissions on the proposals outlined in the Report from interested parties with a view to submitting the final report to the Government in late 2009. Written submissions should be mad
Spain’s magicians are reportedly outraged by the exposure of their tricks and illusions on the “Masked Magician” television show. Recent news reports indicate they are seeking legal advice on how best to protect their “IP”, to avoid their craft from being undermined.
This is a great example of (largely) unexplored IP territory. Are illusions and magic tricks capable of IP protection? Here is some initial thinking:
Mallesons patent and pharmaceutical law specialist speaks at 2nd Annual Pharmaceutical Law Conference
Kim O’Connell, patent and pharmaceutical law specialist at Mallesons, spoke yesterday at IIR’s 2nd Annual Pharmaceutical Law Conference in Sydney.
Commercialisation of patents, particularly in the biotech sector, can be fraught with difficulties. So much is apparent from a recent NSW Supreme Court decision: Fermiscan v James. Fermiscan is listed on the ASX, and aims to commercialise a diagnostic test for breast cancer based on research originally conducted by Dr Veronica James.
The full Federal Court in Mont Adventure Equipment Pty Ltd v Phoenix Leisure Group Pty Ltd  FCAFC 84 has held that a divisional patent application can rely on the filing date of its parent application and therefore claim the benefit of the 12 month grace period. Read our full alert here.
In the recent decision Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd, an alleged patent infringer has been allowed to continue supplying its foam dressing kits for product evaluation purposes (such as tender processes), free of charge, notwithstanding the grant of an interlocutory injunction. This limitation of the scope of the injunction is interesting in light of the recent trend in favour o