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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 486

Journal 2015 January to March for overseas readers

  • Watermark Patent & Trade Marks Attorneys
  • -
  • Australia, New Zealand
  • -
  • April 7 2015

The question in Regency Media v MPEG LA was whether s.145 permitted the licensee to terminate a licence to multiple patents upon the expiry of some

Permissible conduct for owners of an expiring patent were Pfizer's actions a LEAP too far?

  • Addisons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 31 2015

In the recent high profile case, ACCC v Pfizer (Pfizer), Justice Flick held that Pfizer, in making commercial offers to maintain the sale of its

When 5 federal court judges are just not enough

  • Spruson & Ferguson
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 31 2015

In 2013 and 2014, the Federal Court of Australia took the unprecedented step of sitting 5 Judges (instead of 3) to hear the Appeals in two separate

IP in depth: patentable biotechnology a comparative analysis of key markets

  • Fisher Adams Kelly
  • -
  • Australia, European Union, New Zealand, USA
  • -
  • March 31 2015

There is extraordinary complexity and optimization underlying even comparatively 'simple' organisms. These powerful biological products and processes

Pulling down the blinds on patent anticipation through doing a prior act

  • Minter Ellison
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 26 2015

In Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd 2015 FCAFC 31, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered in what circumstances the

Court decision clarifies the words “means for” in patent claims

  • Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 24 2015

Amongst the various appeal points raised was whether an earlier patent application filed by the patentee anticipated the claims of the patent in suit

Blindsided on prior use

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 24 2015

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court reaffirms that not every prior use of an invention will be novelty defeating (see Damorgold

Could your intellectual property licence be terminated under s 145 of the Patents Act?

  • Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 24 2015

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has clarified the operation of s 145(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). This

There can be only one: the single indivisible right to exploit a patented invention

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 23 2015

Summary The decision of the Full Federal Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Apotex Pty Ltd 2015 FCAFC 2 confirms that under Australian patent law

Extension of time provisions in the Patents Act cannot prevent “the Sword of Damocles” from falling

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 20 2015

The Full Federal Court in Sunesis Pharmaceuticals Inc v Commissioner of Patents 2015 FCAFC 29 clarified that section 223(2) of the Patents Act