Australia-New Zealand “SAP” and “SEP” patent reforms now officially culled

In our article of 29 July 2016, we suggested that the proposed Australia-New Zealand Single Application Process (“SAP”) and Single Examination Process (“SEP”) schemes were unlikely to proceed, given a report tabled by the Commerce Select Committee of the New Zealand Parliament.   The New Zealand Government has now, unsurprisingly, followed the Select Committee’s recommendation

Australian Patent Office defies expectations by saying yes to gene patents

The Australian Patent Office has reversed its current examination practice in Arrowhead Research Corporation [2016] APO 70 by confirming that gene-based pharmaceuticals, namely interfering RNA (iRNA) compositions, do represent patentable subject matter in Australia.   Background In October 2015, the High Court of Australia ruled in the “Myriad decision” that isolated naturally-occurring gene sequences did

New Zealand’s self-colliding “poisonous” divisional application – a timely reminder

New Zealand’s Patents Act 2013 took effect from 13 September 2014.  Among the many changes brought about by the new legislation was the way in which the prior art base was defined.  In combination with the fact that a New Zealand patent claim is afforded a single priority date only, this potentially gives rise to

From Researcher to Attorney

Dr Michael Zammit, Shelston IP Senior Associate, reflects on the different perspectives of IP for researchers, IP coordinators and patent attorneys.   To read the full article, which appeared in the October 2016 edition of ‘Chemistry in Australia’ please click here.  

Australian Patent Office overruled – Swiss-style claims can confer eligibility for patent term extensions

As previously reported, the Australian Patent Office issued two decisions in August 2015 in which it found that Swiss-style claims (which are of the general type “Use of compound X in the manufacture of a medicament for a specified (and new) therapeutic use”) cannot be used to support a patent term extension (PTE).  However, this

New Zealand: Daisy-chaining of divisionals to be nipped in the bud following Government review?

A New Zealand Government review has commenced under which the facility to “daisy chain” divisionals from applications proceeding under the Patents Act 1953 is under threat.  In this article, we examine some of the rationale behind this review – and conclude, all things considered, that changes are likely.   “Old Act”, “new Act” and “daisy

Page 30 of 72« First...1020...2829303132...405060...Last »