Archives for: ‘Kim O’Connell’
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.
Fashionistas challenge Louboutin’s sole rights to red sole shoe – Louboutin asserts its claim to red is not yet dead
Last week the French Court of Appeal ruled that Zara could continue to sell shoes with red soles without infringing Louboutin’s “Red Sole Trade Mark”. Louboutin, famous for its red soled shoes, has engaged in an aggressive trade mark enforcement strategy in recent years, commencing proceedings against a range of fashion brands that have adopted the red sole look.
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.
The debate on the patenting of genes has resurfaced with plans to introduce a new private members’ bill banning the patenting of genetic materials. Despite one of the purposes of the recently enacted Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 (Cth) being to increase medical researchers’ access to patented genetic materials, some parliamentarians, in particular Labor back bencher Melissa Parke, consider that the Raising the Bar amendments do not go far enough.
High Court refuses application for special leave to appeal Full Court finding that extended release venlafaxine patent invalid
On Friday, Justices Gummow, Hayne and Keiffel refused an application for Special Leave to appeal to the High Court a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court which found that Wyeth’s patent relating to a method of treatment using an extended release formulation of the anti-depressant venlafaxine was invalid for lack of fair basis on the specification as filed, and on the ground that that the claims were not fairly based on an earlier US priority document.
King & Wood Mallesons acted for Alphapharm in opposing the application for special leave.
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics (Myriad Genetics case), ordering the Court of Appeals to reconsider its finding that gene patents for the detection of inheritable breast cancer were valid in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc (Prometheus Laboratories case) handed down last week.
The United States Supreme Court found last week that the claims of Prometheus’ diagnostic method patents were invalid. The Supreme Court’s decision reversed an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and in so doing has provided patent applicants and challengers with some guidance on when claims to unpatentable laws of nature might be transformed into patent eligible applications of those laws. However, the case may call the validity of certain method claims, including diagnostic method claims, into question. Those who have such claims sh
In September last year we reported that the Indian pharmaceutical company Natco had applied for a compulsory licence to manufacture and sell (in India) a generic version of Bayer’s patented anti-cancer drug sorafenib (Nexavar). Last week the Indian Controller of Patents published a decision granting this licence. The Controller’s decision is significant because it is the first time a compulsory licence has been grante