News & Resources

Is there a business case for patent protection?

Is there a business case for patent protection? – 22 September 2015 Since we are patent attorneys, we will always argue in the affirmative right? Not so. Like any other investment decision, the costs and benefits of pursuing patent protection should be weighed up on a case by case basis (more on pursuing patent protection, […]

Inventive step clarified by the High Court of Australia

Inventive step clarified by the High Court of Australia – 4 September 2015 An inventive step is the Australian equivalent of the US’s non-obviousness requirement. Our most authoritative Court, the High Court of Australia, has recently considered the issue in AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 30. Pleasingly, oft-cited earlier authority as to […]

Mechanical invention withstands opposition

Mechanical invention withstands opposition – 3 September 2015 The Peerless Chain Company recently opposed the grant of a patent on Australian patent application number 2009200745, ‘Flail Chain for Use in Debarking Trees’ in the name of Function Chains Pty Ltd. A wide range of grounds of opposition were raised and succinctly dismissed by Patent Commissioner’s […]

The death knell for the Australian innovation patent?

The death knell for the Australian innovation patent? – 20 August 2015 The Australian innovation patent is akin to utility models available elsewhere. They were introduced in 2001 to stimulate innovation in Australian small to medium businesses. Recent economic analysis has concluded that the innovation patent system does not stimulate innovation as intended, prompting the […]

Australian software patentability still a lottery

Australian software patentability still a lottery – 20 August 2015 This article has been archived. For the most up to date information, please contact our software patent attorney. The patentability of inventions characterised by computer implementation remains uncertain under Australian law. A recent decision [1] (Aristrocrat v Konami) of the Federal Court of Australia [2] […]

Unjustified threats of Australian patent infringement

Unjustified threats of Australian patent infringement – 20 August 2015 Under Australian law, a person subject to an unjustified threat of patent infringement can obtain Court orders declaring that threat is unjustified, to discontinue the threat and/or to recover damages resulting from the threat. Whilst the law makes clear that the mere notification of the […]

‘For’ means ‘suitable for’

‘For’ means ‘suitable for’ – 15 May 2015 Last year, in our article ‘Novelty and infringement by intended use’ we: observed that much can turn on the extent to which claim scope is limited by recitals of intent; outlined what we regard as an orthodox approach to recitals of intent; and outlined recent Australian authority […]

Novelty and infringement by intended use

Novelty and infringement by intended use – 30 October 2014 Products and methods claimed in terms of intent may be identical to products and methods intended for other purposes. Thus much can turn on the extent to which claim scope is limited by recitals of intent. Is an old product for a new use novel? […]

More Posts