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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 11-20 of 1,103

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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