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: 1-6 of 6

Innovation patents for treatment of mine tailings upheld on appeal

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • August 16 2012

In a majority decision, the Full Federal Court has affirmed the decision of Justice Kenny at first instance, finding five innovation patents owned by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Water Treatments Limited to be valid

Don’t rely on purposive construction to extend the scope of a patent claim

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • October 4 2011

A recent decision of the Full Federal Court has highlighted the need to carefully consider the language used in a patent claim, and in particular to ensure that it is broad enough to capture any workable variants which might be adopted by an infringer

Innovation patent system under review

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • October 4 2011

The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP), an independent government-appointed body which advises the Australian Federal Government on IP issues, has released an issues paper as part of its review of the innovation patent system

Claim construction and internal requirements of patent specifications: Full Federal Court reiterates principles

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • July 19 2011

In a recent decision concerning the infringement and validity of two patents for fish-stunning apparatus, the Full Federal Court has provided guidance on the ambit of the expression "claims defining the invention", which is a requirement of a patent specification set out in Section 40(2) of the Australian Patents Act 1990

Providing the best method of performing an invention in patent specifications: how much detail is required?

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • July 5 2011

The Federal Court has recently heard a claim for revocation of two Australian patents on the grounds that the patent specifications did not disclose the best method known to the inventor of performing the claimed invention

Federal Court affirms test for validity of innovation patents

  • Davies Collison Cave
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • June 21 2011

A recent decision of the federal Court has reaffirmed the role of common general knowledge in assessing validity of an innovation patent