Author Archive for: ‘chtaylor’
On the back of our recent post concerning the grant of compulsory licences for HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B medicines in Indonesia, the Indian Patent Appellate Board has now revoked Roche’s patent for its hepatitis C drug, Pegasys, on the ground that it was not sufficiently inventive and “increased efficacy” required by India’s Patent law was not proved. The decision is …
Those drugs cost how much?? Chemist Warehouse price list misleading– but not for the reasons you might think
Last Monday the Supreme Court of Queensland held that a price list published by various Chemist Warehouse pharmacies in Cairns, Nerang, Coolangatta and other parts of Queensland was likely to mislead or deceive and therefore contravene clause 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), schedule 2, section 18). The issue was not the bargain prices per …
On Monday, Justice Bennett held that Zetco’s patent for hot water heater valves was valid, and infringed by Austworld Commodities.
The decision provides useful guidance on what is necessary for an anticipating disclosure. At paragraph 93, her Honour notes that:
In Carol Almond-Martin v Novo Nordisk Health Care AG  APO 42, the latest section 223 extension of time decision, the Patent Office refused to grant an extension of time of one month because it was unable to identify any error or omission or circumstances beyond the control of the person concerned.
Last week the Patent Office granted what must be a record extension of time under the extension of time provisions of the Patents Act (section 223). The extension of over 121 months was granted to enable H. Lundbeck A/S (“Lundbeck”) to file an extension of term application for its patent for escitalopram, which expired in June 2009.
On Tuesday night Professor Peter Cashman gave an informative lecture at the University of Sydney on the patentability of genes.
On Friday the Full Federal Court overturned the decision by Ryan J in Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith and Nephew Pty Ltd to grant an injunction restraining Smith & Nephew from commercialising its negative pressure wound therapy product.
The joint judgment of Finn, Bennett and Middleton JJ is interesting for two reasons.
Uncertainty has arisen in the podcasting arena after VoloMedia, Inc, a company based in Sunnyvale, California, announced that it had been granted the “US Patent for Podcasting” at the end of July this year.
In the days following the announcement, two key questions emerged: can this patent be valid, and if so, how does VoloMedia intend to assert its newly acquired patent rights?