Patent Box legislation introduced into Federal Parliament

Following the Federal Budget announcement in May 2021 (previously reported here), the Government has now introduced legislation to create Australia’s first Patent Box, and help Australian companies to commercialise medical and biotechnology innovation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Concession for Australian Medical Innovations) Bill 2022 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 10 February …
>> Read more

Another One Bites the Dust – Patent Application Naming AI Machine DABUS as Inventor Refused in New Zealand

Last year, patent applications filed by Dr Stephen Thaler naming an artificial intelligence known as ‘Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience‘ (DABUS) as the inventor made news headlines around the world. As reported earlier, in a surprising move the Australian Federal Court recognised DABUS as an inventor. This decision is currently on appeal. In …
>> Read more

Could the High Court put a new spin on an old law for the patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions?

2022 could be shaping up to be a big year for the Commissioner of Patents regarding patent-eligibility of software in Australia, depending on the High Court. There are now two Special Leave applications on foot at the High Court of Australia from two recent Full Federal Court of Australia judgments. Aristocrat filed a Special Leave …
>> Read more

POF welcomes new associate, Dr Jessica Chadbourne

Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick extends a warm welcome to our new associate, Dr Jessica Chadbourne, who has recently joined our Chemistry and Life Sciences team in our Sydney office. Jessica is a PhD qualified chemist with a passion for working with inventors and innovators across the chemical sciences landscape. Jessica has experience across the full spectrum …
>> Read more

Hardingham v RP Data appeal: The risks of implied copyright licences

In Hardingham v RP Data, Thawley J held that RP Data was not liable for infringing copyright in various photos and floor plans reproduced on its website. However, on appeal, a majority of the Full Court reversed this decision, and in doing so, highlighted the risk in relying upon implied terms of informal agreements. Read more …
>> Read more

PROTOX mark PROhibited in Full Court Decision

In Allergan v Self Care, the Full Federal Court overturned a first instancedecision and held that the mark PROTOX, and the phrase “instant Botox® alternative”, are deceptively similar to the mark BOTOX, and therefore use of PROTOX and the phrase constituted trade mark infringement. The Full Court also found that none of the defences relied on by …
>> Read more