Following from the recent significant decision by the US New York's District Court which, as we reported in our April edition, held that Myriad Genetic Inc.'s (Myriad) patents on DNA sequences related to the human breast cancer gene were invalid, that decision has sparked a landmark challenge against the validity of Myriad's similar patent in Australia.
Australia challenge ignited by the US success in invalidating patents on cancer gene
Popular related articles
-
Phone cards found to be misleading and deceptive (Blake Dawson)
The Federal Court has held that phone card sellers, Prepaid Services Pty Ltd (Prepaid Services) and Boost Tel Pty Ltd (Boost), were in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
-
ID scanning and privacy issues: new guidelines (Blake Dawson)
Increasingly, clubs and pubs are using technology to electronically capture identity information about their customers.
-
Is your trade mark distinctive or just descriptive? (Clayton Utz)
Exotic Limo Pty Ltd applied to register ExoticLimo (stylised) for car hire and chauffeuring services.
-
ACCC institutes proceedings against EDirect Pty Ltd (also trading as VIPtel Mobile) (Blake Dawson)
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has instituted proceedings against EDirect Pty Ltd (also trading as VIPtel Mobile) in the Federal Court in Darwin.
-
Misrepresentations in advertising material for the proposed sale of land: some lessons from a recent case (Norton Rose)
A recent NSW case has shed useful light on the judicial treatment of misrepresentations in advertising of properties for sale.
-
Employer wins “cat's paw” case (Foley & Lardner LLP)
On August 11, 2010, a federal court rejected a terminated employee's "cat's paw" argument.
-
HHS releases proposed changes to HIPAA privacy, security and enforcement rules (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC)
On July 14, 2010, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published notice in the Federal Register of proposed rulemaking1 aimed at "strengthening" the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy, security and enforcement regulations (collectively referred to as the "HIPAA Rules") and as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), which was enacted as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-
Health reform Q&A for employers - update (Baker & Daniels LLP)
In the last two months, the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services published three additional sets of interim final regulations to address compliance requirements in the first significant round of changes to impact group health plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
-
Federal external review procedure for group health plans (Covington & Burling LLP)
The health reform law requires non-grandfathered group health plans to meet new standards for processing internal claims and appeals, and also requires these plans to implement a new external review procedure.
-
Health care reform — regulations issued on expanded internal/external claims review process for nongrandfathered group health plans (Hunton & Williams LLP)
On July 19, 2010, the United States Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury issued interim final regulations covering the mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended (the "Health Care Reform Act"), relating to the internal and external claims review process.
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Specsavers v ASDA - a real eye-opener? (Herbert Smith LLP)
The High Court has held that one of ASDA's marketing straplines used to promote its in-store optician took unfair advantage of Specsavers' Community Trade Marks (CTM) under Article 9(1)(c) of the CTM Regulation, but rejected its infringement claims made under Article 9(1)(b) and for passing-off.
-
Custom furniture: innovative plan or illegal imitation? (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC)
Today's Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Bay Area edition, includes a very interesting article on start up furniture companies whose business model includes reproducing popular furniture designs on a custom basis.
-
Court of Justice rules on another AdWords case (Marks & Clerk)
In July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on the case Protakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV in the Netherlands, which involved use of registered trade marks as sponsored keywords.
-
Is your trade mark distinctive or just descriptive? (Clayton Utz)
Exotic Limo Pty Ltd applied to register ExoticLimo (stylised) for car hire and chauffeuring services.
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Boundary dispute over strip of driveway ends up in court (DMH Stallard LLP)
An argument over a narrow strip of land has left a mother and son facing massive costs after their case was heard in the Court of Appeal recently.
-
Western District of New York upholds non-compete and grants TRO (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Plaintiff IDG USA, LLC (“IDG”), a Georgia company with its principal place of business in North Carolina, commenced an action against a former employee, Kevin J. Schupp (“Schupp”), a New York resident, alleging breaches of a Non-Compete Agreement, breach of a Confidentiality Agreement, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets.
-
The Court of Appeal provides guidance on the rules on equitable set-off; Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd (2010) (Mills & Reeve LLP)
Set-off effectively allows one person to deduct from sums he owes to another, amounts that the other person owes to him.
-
Specsavers v ASDA - a real eye-opener? (Herbert Smith LLP)
The High Court has held that one of ASDA's marketing straplines used to promote its in-store optician took unfair advantage of Specsavers' Community Trade Marks (CTM) under Article 9(1)(c) of the CTM Regulation, but rejected its infringement claims made under Article 9(1)(b) and for passing-off.
-
Tips and traps in contracting: novation versus assignment (Minter Ellison)
Contracting parties must be aware of the important differences between novating and assigning their contracts, in particular, when transferring contractual rights, obligations and liabilities.
-
Lleyton Hewitt's 'come-on' challenge fails to be a Grand Slam (Minter Ellison)
Australian professional tennis player, Lleyton Hewitt, has been unsuccessful in challenging the registration of a 'COME-ON' logo owned by John Patrick Sheils (Sheils).
-
Maker of game-pirating devices caught red-handed (Minter Ellison)
The England and Wales High Court of Justice has given summary judgment in a case concerning copyright infringement and the avoidance of copyright-protection devices.
-
Et tu, Brute? When technology procurement ends in tragedy (Minter Ellison)
Transitioning to a new or upgraded IT system is a major undertaking for most businesses.
-
New legal landscape for mobile advertising (Minter Ellison)
Mobile advertising is an increasingly important medium for advertisers, mobile service providers and the telecommunications industry.
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com.