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: 11-20 of 486

Only your best is good enough describing the ‘best mode’ of performing your invention in Australia

  • Fisher Adams Kelly
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 17 2015

It is a fundamental part of the contract between a patent applicant and the State that to be entitled to the monopoly period conferred by patent

IP in depth: inherency in Australia is this invention a necessary part or result of an existing process?

  • Fisher Adams Kelly
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 17 2015

An invention will be considered to be inherently disclosed, and thus unpatentable, where following an earlier known process would result in the same

Substantial market power now you have it, now you don’t. The decision in ACCC v Pfizer

  • Johnson Winter & Slattery
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 17 2015

The recent Federal Court decision in ACCC v Pfizer serves as strong reminder that market power is not static but must be assessed in the context of a

Allowability of post-acceptance amendments under section 102 (pre-Raising the Bar Act)

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 17 2015

A Patent Office decision of 25 November 2014 following opposition proceedings in Innovia Security Pty Ltd v Visual Physics LLC

Blind invention

  • Gadens Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 16 2015

Prior user under s 7 Patents Act 1990 (C'th) will not invalidate a patent if the act did not actually make publicly available all the relevant

Could the Australian courts ‘compel’ those who prescribe and dispense medicines to help big pharma fight generics?

  • Watermark Patent & Trade Marks Attorneys
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 12 2015

A recent UK court ruling has broken new ground in ordering an official health body to issue guidelines on prescribing a generic drug. Could the same

Victorian Supreme Court finds royalties still payable after patents expire

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 10 2015

The Victorian Supreme Court has held that a party who purchased technology that was the subject of patent applications at the time of the transaction

How inevitable must a result be to destroy novelty? Is inevitability relevant to obviousness? When is a patent licence “exclusive”?

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 10 2015

These questions were recently considered by the Full Federal Court (Besanko, Jagot and Nicholas JJ) in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Otsuka

The agony of anticipation: when will a prior disclosure mean a patent is invalid?

  • Clayton Utz
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 5 2015

Inevitability is often associated with death and taxes. Something is "inevitable" only when there can be no other outcome. In a recent decision, the

ACCC v Pfizer some guidance to pharmaceutical companies on navigating competition risk

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 3 2015

The Federal Court of Australia has recently dismissed the ACCC’s case against pharmaceutical company Pfizer. The ACCC alleged that Pfizer had misused