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 296

High Court takes Lexapro

  • Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 17 2014

Alphapharm has been granted special leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision in Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck AS 2013 FCAFC 129

Extension of time to serve evidence no lay down misère

  • Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 15 2014

The potential for waiver of attorney-client privilege will not excuse any inadequacy in information provided to the Commissioner in support of an

Distilling an agreement

  • Freehills Patent Attorneys
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 10 2014

Sometimes, despite the best intentions, a business venture will fail. In such circumstances, agreements relating to the ownership of business property

Extension enabled by esoteric experts; but it pays to gaze forward in time

  • Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 8 2014

The decision in Shelford Services Pty Limited v Baylor Research Institute provides further indication of how the Australian Patent Office will apply

Patentee blindsided by partially uncorroborated evidence

  • Freehills Patent Attorneys
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 8 2014

Evidence of what occurred over 15 years ago was ultimately accepted despite being only partially corroborated. As a result, many of the claims from

Software patents will not crash the patent system

  • Corrs Chambers Westgarth
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 4 2014

In November last year, the Full Federal Court (comprised of Justices Kenny, Bennett and Nicholas) had an opportunity to consider whether software

Recent interpretation of “exclusive licensee” has serious commercial implications

  • Griffith Hack
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 27 2014

Towards the end of last year Justice Yates decided that a licensee is not an "exclusive licensee" of a patent, within the meaning of that term in the

USPTO issues guidance on patentable subject matter

  • Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick
  • -
  • Australia, USA
  • -
  • March 26 2014

The recent AMP v Myriad decision in the US Supreme Court explored subject matter excluded from patentability in the US. The Court held that a

Australian Patent Office steps up to the challenge on inventive step

  • Freehills Patent Attorneys
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 25 2014

Traditionally, it has been relatively easy in Australia, compared with the US or Europe, to meet the threshold level of inventiveness needed for an

Pharmaceutical patent injunction refused: Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd 2014 FCA 241

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 24 2014

Pfizer sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain Apotex from launching its pregabalin products for the treatment of seizures, claiming that the