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
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (the RTB Act) commenced 3 years ago, and with the passage of the legislation came a number of important changes to the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (the Act), in particular to increase the thresholds of ‘disclosure’ and ‘support’ required in a patent specification. Australian attorneys
The requirements of disclosure and support in Australian patent specifications post ‘Raising the Bar’
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (the RTB Act) commenced on 15 April 2013, and with it came a raft of changes to Australian patent law. Some of the most significant changes were intended to set higher thresholds for the level of disclosure and support required in a patent specification.
The High Court of Australia handed down its decision yesterday in the appeal by AstraZeneca (AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2015) HCA 30), against last year’s ruling by the Full Court of the Federal Court, affirming the Full Court’s decision that AstraZeneca’s low dose rosuvastatin patent was obvious. The High Court has unanimously
Due to changes introduced by the “Raising the Bar” Regulations 2013, obtaining an extension of time for filing evidence in Australian trade mark opposition proceedings has become particularly difficult, unless the relevant party can demonstrate it has made all reasonable efforts to act promptly and diligently at all times. Parties and Trademark Monster Energy
A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 312 ALR 1 (‘AstraZeneca’) has clarified the tests for novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). In relation to inventive step, the Full Court in AstraZeneca marked its disapproval of the ‘starting