To subscribe to Shelston IP updates, please complete the form provided.
New Zealanders head to the polls on 23 September 2017. IP is very seldom a kingmaker when it comes to choosing a Government and readers will be unsurprised to learn that it has registered barely a blip on the radar throughout the present campaign. Notwithstanding, this article briefly considers whether there is likely to be
Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd  FCAFC 138 Summary Applicants should include the best method(s) of performing the invention known at the time of filing a patent application, withholding better or superior embodiments or features can result in invalidity of the granted patent. Novelty destroying prior use does
Australian courts have recently taken a dim view of competitors claiming that the patentee has made unjustified threats of patent infringement. It is now clear that, in relation to the assessment of damages, it is necessary for the defendant to show any threats made by the patentee were directly the cause of loss or damage to the defendant. In Mizzi Family Holdings
The “TPPA-11” is what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) Free Trade Agreement following the withdrawal of the United States. Because the TPP was never ratified prior to US withdrawal, some have termed it the “zombie” TPP. Despite the absence of the US, there remains a strong resolve amongst the TPPA-11 to realise economic benefits
Government responds to the Productivity Commission Report and the Courts find “Swiss-style” claims not sufficient for a PTE The Australian Government, in its highly anticipated response to the Productivity Commission’s Report, recommended only a minor change to the legislation relating to patent term extensions (PTEs). Almost simultaneously, in the equally eagerly-awaited decision of the
Last year we reported on a Full Court of the Federal Court decision that confirmed the importance of disclosing, in a patent specification, the best method of performing an invention as required under the Australian Patents Act 1990. In Kineta, Inc.  APO 45 (31 August 2017), the Patent Office has followed the Full