Archives for: ‘Kim O’Connell’

Blindsided on prior use

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court reaffirms that not every prior use of an invention will be novelty defeating (see Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 31). Damorgold’s patent related to a spring assisted mechanism for controlling blinds. JAI briefly marketed (but did not sell) a RolaShades product in Australia which possessed …

Read More
Subjects:

Extension of time provisions in the Patents Act cannot prevent “the Sword of Damocles” from falling

The Full Federal Court in Sunesis Pharmaceuticals Inc v Commissioner of Patents [2015] FCAFC 29 clarified that section 223(2) of the Patents Act, which allows the Commissioner of Patents to grant an extension of time to complete a required act, cannot be used to delay the effects of the commencement of legislative amendments. Specifically, the Court found that section 223 …

Read More
Subjects:

More lessons on patent amendment

6 years after our “Lessons about patent amendment” post the Federal Court has handed down another decision in the same proceeding (Apotex v Les Laboratories Servier (No 4) [2015] FCA) about amending a patent under s 105 of the Patents Act. The patent at the centre of these proceedings relates to Servier’s blood pressure medication, perindopril. This time the Court …

Read More
Subjects:

Court rejects ACCC claim against Pfizer

The Federal Court has today dismissed a case brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against Pfizer Australia for alleged misuse of market power and exclusive dealing. The case arose from Pfizer’s sale of its own generic artorvastatin (Lipitor) product to pharmacies. Pfizer’s patent which prevented generic entry into the artorvastatin market expired in May 2012. Prior to patent expiry, Pfizer’s …

Read More
Subjects: |

High Court grants Application for Special Leave to Appeal in Myriad Genetics

The High Court has granted Cancer Voices’ application for special leave to appeal a Full Federal Court finding that Myriad’s patent relating to the BRCA1 gene is patentable.

Read More
Subjects:

Licensees beware – are you exclusive?

The Full Federal Court confirmed last week in BMS v Apotex that where a patent licence reserves some rights to be exercised by the licensor, the licensee will not have standing to sue and claim damages as an “exclusive licensee”. Importantly, in infringement proceedings, a patentee can only claim damages for damage suffered by itself or an exclusive licensee. In …

Read More
Subjects:

ACCC grants interim authorisation of Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct

In October this year we posted on the ACCC’s draft determination on the new edition 18 of Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct (see more here). As readers of our blog might recall, the ACCC indicated that it would not grant approval to the new edition of the Code unless certain amendments were made to increase transparency regarding gifts and benefits …

Read More

Is your computer-implemented business method patentable? The Full Federal Court dismisses Research Affiliates’ appeal

A unanimous Full Federal Court has held that a computer implemented method of creating an investment index is not patentable, on the basis that the substance of the claimed invention – an abstract idea or scheme – is itself not patentable subject matter and just because the claimed invention could be implemented using a computer does not make it patentable. …

Read More
Subjects:

Unanimous Full Court dismisses Research Affiliates’ appeal

In a decision handed down this afternoon, the Full Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal by Research Affiliates LLC from a decision of Justice Emmett in 2013 (summary here). The Full Court affirmed Justice Emmett’s decision that the claimed invention of two patent applications, in the name of Research Affiliates, is not a manner of manufacture as required by the …

Read More
Subjects: |

Page 3 of 20«12345»1020...Last »