The Full Court decision in Actavis Pty Ltd v Orion Corporation [2016] FCAFC 121 potentially limits the effectiveness of a definition of “comprises” in a specification. Claim 17 of the patent defined: A method for preparing an oral solid composition comprising entacapone, levodopa, and carbidopa, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or hydrate thereof, wherein the …
>> Read more
In the recent decision of Verrocchi v Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 104, the Full Federal Court confirmed that Chemist Warehouse could not stop Direct Chemist Outlet from using the colour combination of yellow, red and blue, despite their concerns that use of these colours could cause confusion among their customers. The appellants, …
>> Read more
Following the signing of the Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment (Fee review) Regulation 2016 by the Governor-General on 17 August 2016, official fees for patents, trade marks, designs and plant breeder’s rights are changing. Most of these changes will take affect from 10 October 2016, although changes to fees paid through the International Bureau in relation …
>> Read more
Can a single colour be a brand? Generally, the Trade Marks Office and the Courts are reluctant to recognise claims made by a business that a specific colour is theirs alone. There are of course some famous exceptions. Kodak owns the colour gold as a trade mark for photographic film and Cadbury owns the colour …
>> Read more
In the recent case of Lodestar Anstalt v Campari America1, the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia ordered the removal of two trade marks from the register for non-use because the registered owner did not exercise actual practical control over the use of the trade marks by its licensee. Under the Australian Trade …
>> Read more
Australian law requires that, in addition to being novel and inventive, a patentable invention must be ‘useful’. Utility is not only an issue considered during examination, but is also a ground for opposition of an Australian application, as well as for re-examination and revocation of a patent. The recent case of Ronneby Road v ESCO1 …
>> Read more
Do you have: a logo for your business? a colour or graphic used for your packaging, website or brochures? unique technology that you have developed to sell or use in your business? a unique method or plan for how you do business? a recipe you use to make material you work with? If the answer …
>> Read more
If you own or manage a business you may be surprised by how much valuable intellectual property (IP) you have. Protecting your IP is critical when establishing your product or service in the market. It provides a competitive advantage for your business and can be the key difference between success and failure. Failure to secure …
>> Read more
Implementation of the single trans-Tasman patent application (Australia and New Zealand) appears to have been terminated through the surprise recommendations of the New Zealand government’s Commerce Committee issued on 13 July 2016. New Zealand government’s Commerce Committee published an updated Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill on 13 July 2016 which recommended …
>> Read more
Omnibus claims are now effectively prohibited following the Raising the Bar amendments, however a great many patents including such claims have been granted. The Full Federal Court decision,GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd [2016] FCAFC 90, provides some welcome guidance on how such claims should be construed. At trial, it had …
>> Read more
