Has “Raising the Bar” actually raised the bar on inventive step?

Nearly four years ago, on 15 April 2013, Australian patent law entered a brave new world.  Gone were the days of so-called “soft” patentability criteria that were out of kilter with those of our major trading partners – the Raising the Bar Act was going to change all of that.  One reputedly soft criterion was

Poisonous Priority: Is it a problem?

The European Patent Office (EPO) recently issued its reasoned decision clarifying the EPO’s stance regarding partial priority (sometimes called multiple priorities).[1]  But what is the relationship between poisonous priority and partial priority and how do the legal approaches to these issues vary between different jurisdictions?  We take a look at these aspects of patent law

Federal Court decision provides guidance on several useful aspects for practitioners

In the recent Federal Court case of Insight Radiology Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd ([2016] FCA 1406), Insight Radiology was unsuccessful in its appeal against the registrar’s decision refusing registration of its application for trademark registration of the following composite mark: Insight Clinical enjoyed a substantial victory in its claims that Insight

The importance of Swiss-style claims in Australia

The Federal Court has recently issued a decision that highlights the importance of including Swiss-style claims in Australian pharmaceutical patents.   As reported previously, the Federal Court (Nicholas J) confirmed in Apotex Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 3) [2017] FCA 94 that offers made during the term of a patent to supply infringing

Congratulations Allira Hudson-Gofers

At Shelston IP we are proud to announce that Senior Associate, Allira Hudson-Gofers has been selected as a mentee in the 2017 EY Women Athletes Business Network Mentoring Program.   The EY Women Athletes Business Network (WABN) Mentoring Program In partnership with EY, the Women Athletes Business Network Mentoring Program is designed to harness the untapped

Federal Court of Australia confirms that offers made during patent term to supply after patent expiry constitute infringement

This week the Federal Court of Australia (Nicholas J) delivered a significant judgment in Apotex Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 3) [2017] FCA 94, confirming that an Australian patent will be infringed by offers made during the term of the patent, without the patentee’s consent, to supply infringing products after the patent has

Page 30 of 77« First...1020...2829303132...405060...Last »