We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 311

IP Australia encourages rapid examination of "green patent applications"

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 16 2009

On 15 September 2009 IP Australia released a public statement announcing it would be taking action to assist innovators with green technologies to fast track their patent applications through the Australian patent examination process

When is an improvement not an improvement?

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

In Fermiscan Pty Ltd v James 2009 NSWSC 546 the applicants claimed that the respondent inventor was obliged to assign her rights in an invention as a result of an agreement between the parties which included an obligation to assign all "improvements" in an earlier invention

Practice update: data exclusivity provisions

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

In Australia the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) ("the Act") sets exclusivity periods for the use of information provided by a sponsor in an application for approval of a therapeutic good by the Therapeutic Goods Administration ("TGA"

Clarifying the meaning of “pharmaceutical substance” extending the patent term for drug delivery systems

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

For some time since the introduction of the pharmaceutical extension of term provisions in 1999, the Patent Office has steadfastly refused to grant extensions of term to patents in respect of drug delivery systems, relying on an early decision in which a Delegate of the Commissioner held that only mixtures (having an uncontrolled spatial configuration of the entities present) or chemical (rather than pharmaceutical) compounds qualify as a "pharmaceutical substance"

Mirror, mirror which registration is the first for them all?

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

In the appeal to the Full Federal Court of the decision handed down by Lindgren J last year, the majority of the Full Federal Court upheld the primary judge's finding that the ()- enantiomer of citalopram, which was construed as referring to the separate or isolated enantiomer, was not anticipated by the earlier disclosure of the racemate or by mere reference to individual enantiomers

When (unquantifiable) loss is more another interlocutory battle between originator and generic

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

In the recent Federal Court decision of Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 004 118 594) v Wyeth 2009 FCA 595 the patentee, Wyeth, successfully applied for interlocutory injunctive relief restraining Sigma from supplying a generic drug used to treat patients suffering from central nervous system disorders including depression

Patent re-examination re-examined

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

On 2 June 2009, Justice Kenny of the Federal Court ruled on an application made by BMW Plastics Pty Ltd ("BMW") seeking an order under Section 97(3) of the Patents Act that the Commissioner of Patents be directed to re-examine the specification of Australian Standard Patent No. 2001235262 owned by VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd ("VIP") ("the VIP Patent"

The Barefoot saga

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

The Full Federal Court has decided that Lion Nathan's adoption and use of the trade mark BAREFOOT RADLER infringed Gallo's trade mark BAREFOOT registered for wine

Divisional applications entitled to benefit from grace period

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

The Full Federal Court recently handed down a decision that clarifies the law in Australia provides a full twelve-month grace period to divisional patents

The test for innovative step confirmed

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 30 2009

The test for innovative step has been considered for the first time by the Full Federal Court, which confirmed that the threshold requirement for innovative step is lower than that which is required for inventive step (that is, for standard patents

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy