In the decision Hanwha Solutions Corporation v REC Solar Pte Ltd [2023] FCA 1017, Justice Burley considered the application of the well-known test for lack of novelty from General Tire – will following the directions in the prior art inevitably result in something being made or done which would constitute an infringement of the patent …
>> Read more
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc and CRISPR Therapeutics AG have gained a world-first regulatory approval for the use of a CRISPR-based gene editing therapy in patients, as the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) granted conditional marketing authorisation for CASGEVY.[1],[2] CASGEVY is a therapy designed to treat sickle-cell disease and inherited blood disorders, and works …
>> Read more
The decision in UbiPark v TMA Capital Australia[1] provides some useful commentary on the role of expert witness evidence in a patent infringement and revocation action. Moshinsky J, referenced various authorities at [55] to [63] on the principles of construction of a patent and the role the expert witness plays in that exercise. At [59] …
>> Read more
IP Australia has recently updated its list of countries where it is considered a competent International Search Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examination Authority (IPEA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) which now includes Brunei Darussalam, Jordan , Iraq , Mauritius and Oman. For PCT applicants filing with agreed receiving offices (Ros), it is now …
>> Read more
It’s been a little over a year since the High Court of Australia’s surprising 3:3 split judgment in Aristocrat v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat ’22) relating to manner of manufacture and in particular the patentability of computer implemented inventions. The result of the split High Court judgment is that the Full Court …
>> Read more
The Australian Federal Court yesterday confirmed that the accepted patent application owned by ToolGen Inc. and directed to CRISPR/Cas9 systems and methods of genome editing in eukaryotic cells contains no patentable claims.1 The Court found that all claims of ToolGen’s application2 lacked entitlement to the earliest priority date,3 lacked novelty or inventive step, and were …
>> Read more
Following the 2012 Raising the Bar reforms, Australia’s Patents Act requires that patent claims are supported by matter disclosed in the specification. This means that the description must enable a skilled person to perform the invention across the full breadth of the claim without undue burden, and the claim scope must be commensurate with the …
>> Read more
We are pleased to announce that POF achieved a Tier 1 (Gold) Ranking in the 2023 IAM Patent 1000, citing our tailored and commercially focussed IP services and our Asia Direct filing model as stand-out features of the firm. Many of our attorneys were also individually recognised for their outstanding work. POF Managing Principal Ross McFarlane once again …
>> Read more
IPONZ recently published an update advising that they have removed late payment fees for PCT applications where IPONZ is the designated Receiving Office: For new PCT applications from 15 May 2023: We will no longer charge late payment fees for these PCT applications. If the application fees are not paid by the deadline, we will …
>> Read more
On 15 April 2013, the Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment (Raising the Bar) Regulation 2013 (No 1) commenced with much fanfare. The RTB regulations made significant changes in relation to patent oppositions, principally with the aim of resolving proceedings faster. The reforms recognised that under the previous regime, opposition proceedings often took several (and sometimes many) …
>> Read more
