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 925

Lights out on 'springboard' injunction for Streetworx

  • Allens
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 26 2015

When a business supplying streetlights in Australia that infringed a patent, then modified them so that they did not infringe, the patentee applied

Dude, where’s my Hoverboard?

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

As patent attorneys, we are quite used to seeing new ideas and amazing innovations in all areas of technology. That said, a recent Kickstarter

IP Australia releases medical device innovation report

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

The study identified 139,170 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications filed globally in the medical devices area with a priority date between

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

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

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

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