Australia reigns supreme over the US in patenting diagnostic methods

In July 1969, as a young boy, I watched in awe, along with the rest of world, as the United States of America put two men on the moon. Years later in 2011, the then Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, stood before US Congress and recalled the same moon-landing memory and with acquiescence wept

Divisional patent practice in New Zealand – protecting an endangered species

Across most jurisdictions, the facility to file a divisional application is an essential part of a patent attorney’s toolkit.  It is also an avenue of potential strategic advantage to patent applicants.  As Trans-Tasman patent attorneys, we’re presently seeing the two jurisdictions we service move further and further apart in respect of divisional practice.  Australia remains

Genes, genetic applications and patent eligibility: Australia continues to be a gene-patent friendly jurisdiction

Non-invasive prenatal genetic testing based on maternal blood sampling is replacing older invasive forms of testing – a paradigm shift in prenatal medicine. The patent rights associated with these methods have been litigated in several jurisdictions, most notably to date the US, UK and Australia. This decision of Justice Beach in Sequenom, Inc. v Ariosa

Announcement: Shelston IP promotions 2019

Shelston IP is very pleased to announce the following promotions from 1 July 2019.   Congratulations to Allira Hudson-Gofers, Duncan Longstaff and Michael Deacon, Shelston IP’s newly appointed Principals. Congratulations also goes to Nathan Sinclair, Serena White, Danielle Spath and Jessica Chadbourne for their promotions. This is well deserved recognition for their hard work and dedication shown towards their IP practice  and clients each day.   Allira

Will the United States Congress Clean-Up the Patent Eligibility Mess?

Steps are currently being taken by the United States congress to address the issue of patent eligible subject matter that has plagued the United States patent system in recent years.   How we got here? There is no question that United States Supreme Court decisions such as Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc, 566

Let the Petitioner Beware: Clearing a path by proactively challenging patents in an IPR may result in a lack of standing to appeal an adverse decision

A recent decision by the United States Federal Circuit (AVX Corporation v Presidio Components, Inc (Fed Cir, No 2018-1106, 13 May 2019)) has clarified the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), but has left open the issue of estoppel.   AVX

Page 2 of 3312345...102030...Last »