Understanding the differences between patentability (novelty) and freedom to operate prior art searching

During the course of the patenting process to protect a new invention, one may require a patentability search (also known as a novelty search) in order to determine whether the new invention is new (novel) and arguably inventive in view of the prior art. This situation can be contrasted with the commercial exploitation of a

Apple showcases value of registered design protection

The value and power of registered design protection has been confirmed by the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeal in its decision of 18 May 2015, upholding an earlier decision, that certain of Samsung’s smartphones infringed Apple’s patented designs directed to its iPhone.   This decision highlights the value of securing registered design rights

Clarification of patent novelty limits

The Australian courts have recently clarified what acts will constitute novelty destroying prior art. In Australia, patents are normally invalid where the idea was publicly used or known before the priority date of the application. This normally means a novelty-destroying act occurs when at least one member of the public is free to make use of the information obtained from the act. In Damorgold

Computer-implemented inventions and business method patents in Australia: 2011 Update

There has recently been a marked shift in the attitude of the Australian Patent Office (APO) in relation to the patentability of computer-implemented inventions and business methods. In short, the practice of the APO has changed in a manner that causes complications for patent applications in these areas of technology currently under examination. However, the