Archives for: ‘Metals & mining’
Here’s the drill: The Full Federal Court clarifies the requirement that patents disclose the ‘best method’ of performing the invention
The Full Federal Court recently drilled down on the ‘best method’ requirement in Australia in Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd  FCAFC 138. Under Section 40(2)(aa) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) a ‘complete specification must … disclose the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention’. This requirement has been …
A decision in March of the Full Federal Court in Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd  FCAFC 44 concerning unjustified threats of infringement will have some lawyers as happy as pigs in mud. Dishing the Dirt Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (AMC) is the owner of an innovation patent related to core sampling. In November 2006, it …
“Like our page!” is a phrase you see a lot on Facebook. But following a change to Facebook’s Platform Policy last week, you may not see it as much. Great news for users, but maybe not-so-great news for those businesses relying on like-gates to gain traction on Facebook. Here are 8 things that all businesses on Facebook will want to think about now …
A recent case of the NSW Supreme Court, Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Newcrest Operations Ltd  NSWSC 281, highlights the importance of being able to prove your own loss or the other party’s profit as a result of a breach of confidence, and how confidentiality agreements interact with the equitable duty of confidence and disclosure to Government …
The High Court today heard special leave applications in two IP cases – however, in both cases Chief Justice French and Justice Gageler declined to grant special leave. The first case was Ucorp’s application for special leave to appeal from the Full Court’s decision regarding an implied licence in respect of the copyright in Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Acohs …
You would be forgiven for having missed this news given everything else that was happening in Canberra this week, but the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 was passed by the Senate on 27 February 2012. The Bill will now go before the House of Representatives in the autumn sitting and is expected to come into force later this year.
The Bill targets five key areas:
On 14 July 2010, Tata Sons, the intellectual property holding company for the Indian industrial conglomerate the Tata Group, applied for an injunction against Greenpeace India for using its “T within a circle” device in a virtual game on the Greenpeace website. Tata Sons petitioned for a temporary injunction and damages, arguing that the game, called “Turtle vs Tata”, tarnished their trade mark and defamed their company. The game contained a Pac-Man style maze where the object of the game was for the turtle characters to defeat the “Tata demons”, the demons of course b
In December we discussed the impact of the new Personal Properties Securities Act: see Crosstown Music bitten by partial assignment of copyright. On 13 February 2011, the Council of Australian Governments decided to defer the commencent of the PPSA regime from May 2011 until October 2011.
In the wake of the Stern Hu/Rio Tinto case, the Chinese State Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission has released guidance on what constitutes a “commercial secret”. Mallesons’ Nicolas Groffman examines the implications of this guidance for Australians investing in China here.
Search this blog
- Consumer & retail (202)
- Energy, resources & projects (14)
- Financial services (9)
- Government (67)
- Health & pharmaceuticals (125)
- Industrials (28)
- Property, construction & infrastructure (14)
- Technology, media, entertainment & telecommincations (381)