So what’s the difference?

The first serious consideration of section 7(4) of the Patents Act 1990 relating to innovative step, the decision of Gyles J in Delnorth Pty Ltd v Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd…

Gyles J Takes Aim at Enabling Disclosure

In Apotex Pty Ltd (formerly GenRx Pty Ltd) v Sanofi-Aventis [2008] FCA 1194, previously mentioned here, Gyles J concluded his consideration of novelty with the comment that: Anticipation is deadly…

Federal Court’s Flu Shot for Patent Law

Over 100 years ago Lord Esher, in Ungar v Sugg (1892) 9 RPC 113, opined: that a man had better have his patent infringed, or have anything happen to him…

Australian Courts and Spanish Law

In an appeal from a Trade Mark opposition, Ryan J in Neumann v Sons of the Desert SL [2008] FCA 1183, has seemingly significantly broadened the operation of section 42…

New Patents Bill tightens up on patents process

The Patents Bill was introduced to Parliament on 9 July, and will replace the Patents Act 1953. The purpose of the new Bill is to update New Zealand’s patent regime…

Gummow J sets homework assignment for IceTV and Nine

As reported elsewhere , the High Court last Tuesday granted IceTV special leave to appeal against the Full Court’s finding that it had infringed Nine’s copyright in its TV schedule….