ARENA funding for Australian Cleantech start-ups: How patents can assist

Australian start-ups are often cash-poor – and IP costs money.  We get that.  To that end, Shelston IP’s “Cleantech” team is constantly on the lookout for ways in which our local start-up community can combine the “necessary evil” of expenditure on intangible assets with funding sources specifically dedicated to such purposes.  With ARENA, we may

A clear mistake in a claim term cannot be corrected through claim construction

In GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited v Generic Partners Pty Limited [2018] FCAFC 71, the Full Federal Court has found that terms used in claims cannot be interpreted beyond their plain meaning.  Such a decision emphasises that great care is required when drafting claims that contain words or phrases that have a

“Promising” development for ESCO Corporation

ESCO Corporation v Ronneby Road Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 46   We previously reported the Federal Court decision in Ronneby Road Pty Ltd v ESCO Corporation [2016] FCA 588  ( in which all claims of ESCO Corporation’s (“ESCO”) patent application AU 2011201135 for a Wear Assembly were found to lack utility on the basis that

Cuts dressed as integrity: a haphazard approach to funding innovation

Our colleagues at Glasshouse Advisory summarise last night’s budget which contains inexplicable cuts to the R&D Tax Incentive program, which combined with other key Budget measures will have a negative impact on Australia’s innovation ecosystem.   However, there is a sleeper issue hidden in the Budget papers that provides insight into the reasons why this has happened.

Government review of Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 highlights relevance to local inventors

The Australian Government has announced an independent review of the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012.  Local inventors (and indeed, patent attorneys) may think “so what?  Unless I’m looking to patent a weapon, how is this remotely relevant to me?”  Well, if your invention falls into what’s termed the “dual use” category – inventions having potential

Double Walled Difference: Pi-Design AG [2018] ADO 2

Executive Summary Evidence establishing the state of the prior art is important, as this evidence may influence the other statutory factors in assessing distinctiveness. Prior art evidence should be limited to before the priority date of a design to be fully persuasive. Side by side comparisons between a design and the prior art may assist

Page 10 of 70« First...89101112...203040...Last »