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 1,767

But for the grace of section 223 go I: licences for would-be patent infringers
  • The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria
  • Australia
  • May 31 2017

In these proceedings, Beach J considered the proper interpretation of s 223 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) as it concerns the application for licences


Mud thrown over failure to link assessed damages with threats of litigation
  • The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria
  • Australia
  • May 31 2017

In AMC’s earlier (and unsuccessful) infringement proceedings before the proceeding referred to above, Coretell cross-claimed under s 128 of the


Update on Swiss-type patent claims in Australia
  • Fisher Adams Kelly Callinans
  • Australia
  • May 31 2017

As discussed in our previous article, 'Swiss-type' format is one of several claim types that can be used in Australia for obtaining protection related


Muddy waters clarified: date for recovery for patent infringement commences from date of grant
  • The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria
  • Australia
  • May 31 2017

Australian Mud Company (AMC) is the owner of two innovation patents (the System Patent and the Method Patent) relating to “core sample orientation”, a


Patenting biotech in Australia - a brief update
  • Griffith Hack
  • Australia
  • May 29 2017

Whether it’s a new drug, insecticide or diagnostic, the developer needs to know they will have exclusive ownership to the invention and enjoy a


Threats Muddy Waters: unjustified threats of infringement in the Full Federal Court of Australia
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Australia
  • May 26 2017

A decision in March of the Full Federal Court in Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd 2017 FCAFC 44 concerning unjustified threats of


Best method: the New Act
  • FB Rice
  • Australia
  • May 22 2017

Any applicant for patent protection in Australia must disclose the best method for performing the invention known to it at the time of filing a


Australian Government’s compensation claim against pharma patentees rumbles on
  • Allen & Overy LLP
  • Australia
  • May 18 2017

Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi 2017 FCA 382 is the latest development in the Australian Government’s bid to recover substantial compensation


Intervet chew on ownership of an invention in Australian patent opposition proceedings
  • Baldwins
  • Australia
  • May 18 2017

This case concerns whether or not the rights to an invention of an Australian patent application had been successfully transferred from the inventors


Amendments to a patent during court proceedings - how much transparency is required?
  • Shelston IP Pty Ltd
  • Australia
  • May 15 2017

In Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation 2017 FCA 466, the Federal Court has provided guidance regarding the level of disclosure required by a patentee