Federal Court shows generics how to avoid infringement of Swiss-style claims

Under Australian practice, both method of treatment and Swiss-style claims, in the format use of [compound X] in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of [condition Y]” are permitted. As reported previously, method of treatment and Swiss-style claims are directed to different infringing acts in Australia. This highlights the importance of pursuing both

Shelston IP Finalist – Client Choice Awards 2019

Shelston IP has been named a Finalist in the Financial Review Client Choice Awards 2019 for Best IP Specialist Firm.   Beaton Research + Consulting, the leading researcher in ‘voice of the client’ services and consultant to professional services, provides the independent research behind the Awards. The survey research for the Client Choice Awards and beatonbenchmarks is

IP: Winning tenders and increasing your competitive advantage

For many manufacturers in Australia, Intellectual Property (IP) can be the most valuable asset the business owns. Why? Because IP can be used in a variety of ways to support a business, writes Greg Whitehead in the latest edition of AMT (Australian Manufacturing Technology) magazine.   For many manufacturing businesses in Australia, Intellectual Property (IP)

Doppelgangers – local versus absolute novelty under New Zealand Practice

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  New Zealand’s new Patents Act 2013 commenced on 13 September 2014 – and with it, the much-heralded shift from the local novelty standard employed under the Patents Act 1953 to absolute, or worldwide novelty. In this article, we consider what effect this shift is likely

Gareth Dixon recognised as Legal Influencer in IP – Australasia by Lexology

Gareth Dixon is named a Legal Influencer for IP – Australasia in the recent Lexology Content Marketing Awards.   Using a bespoke automated process to analyse Lexology readership data, the Lexology Content Marketing Awards reward those law firms and individuals which consistently produce useful, insightful legal content for their subscribers. Edward Costelloe, Managing Director of Lexology


在澳大利亚,植物新品种可以通过植物育种者权(PBR)和专利权获得保护。在新西兰,植物新品种可以通过植物新品种权(PVR)而获得保护,植物本身也可以受到专利权的保护。如何选择一个最合适的保护形式,需要考虑该保护形式所能提供的权利,以及满足该保护形式所需要的条件。 与专利保护相比,植物育种者权PBR/ 植物新品种权PVR获得保护的程度较低,这与植物育种所涉及的创造性比较低有关。但这并不意味着满足植物育种者权PBR/ 植物新品种权PVR保护要求的植物新品种,不能获得专利权的保护。因此,在澳大利亚和新西兰,应考虑两种保护形式。 为什么澳大利亚要对植物进行保护? 农业是澳大利亚国民经济的“五大支柱”之一。从2013年至2014年,澳大利亚农产品产值超过了500亿澳元,其中小麦作出的贡献最大。[1] 澳大利亚的农产品多数用于出口。由于澳大利亚独特的地理位置,使澳大利亚能够反季节供应北半球市场,加之邻近亚洲,也能够满足不断增长的亚洲中产阶级市场的需求。事实上,为响应亚洲不断增长的产品需求,澳大利亚政府制定了2030年前澳大利亚的农业总产值翻番的宏伟目标  [2]。与中国签订自由贸易协议更是为实现这个目标助了一臂之力。 [1] Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Agricultural Commodities September Quarter 2014. [2] The Coalition’s 2030 Vision for Developing Northern Australia, June 2013. 澳大利亚的植物知识产权保护一览 澳大利亚在过去的15年中, 植物育种行业发生了巨大的变化,从过去的主要由政府资助到现在几乎完全由私人来经营。以下图表不难看出,在过去十年中,澳大利亚在植物科学领域(IPCA10H类别)的专利申请在增加,同期植物育种者权PBR的申请量似乎有所下降。如以下所要讨论的那样,在满足专利性的条件下,较之于植物育种者权PBR,专利的保护力度更大。 下面左右两个图分别显示在2015年1月,澳大利亚植物科学领域(IPCA10H类别)的主要专利申请人,以及出现在这些专利申请摘要中常见的词汇。                            澳大利亚专利申请人       

Page 3 of 3212345...102030...Last »