Category Archive for: ‘Patents’
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
The Full Federal Court has given further content to the concept of ‘innovative step’ contained in the Patents Act 1990 innovation patent system. On Tuesday, the Court handed down its decision in Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd  FCAFC 81, rejecting Dura-Post’s appeal from a decision of Gyles J that certain relevant claims of Delnorth’s innovation patents (for roadside posts) were valid and infringed. The Full Court’s decision only relates to questions of validity and, in partic
The US Federal Circuit recently held that when seeking a declaratory judgment in relation to a patent held by a foreign entity, specific personal jurisdiction is only appropriate where that entity has sufficient contacts with the jurisdiction in which the judgment is pursued.
The rationale for this is found in the due process requirements in the US Constitution. Essentially, jurisdiction is appropriate over an entity when it would be fair to haul it before courts in that forum. Fairness, in turn, can be established where:
A data processing system for pooling the assets of investors; a method for structuring a financial transaction to protect an individual’s assets; a method of hedging against the risk of a spike in the price of coal: are these patentable inventions?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has proposed to WIPO a comprehensive overhaul of the PCT system, dubbed PCT II, which would further internationalise the patent application system.