The first serious consideration of section 7(4) of the Patents Act 1990 relating to innovative step, the decision of Gyles J in Delnorth Pty Ltd v Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1225, gives a somewhat unexpected interpretation of the phrase “substantial contribution to the working of the invention”. Gyles J commences with a concise [...]
Click here to see the full post
In Apotex Pty Ltd (formerly GenRx Pty Ltd) v Sanofi-Aventis [2008] FCA 1194, previously mentioned here, Gyles J concluded his consideration of novelty with the comment that: Anticipation is deadly but requires the accuracy of a sniper, not the firing of a 12 gauge shotgun. However his Honour’s findings on novelty, and in particular the [...]
Click here to see the full post Over 100 years ago Lord Esher, in Ungar v Sugg (1892) 9 RPC 113, opined: that a man had better have his patent infringed, or have anything happen to him in this world, short of losing all his family by influenza, than have a dispute about a patent. His patent is swallowed up, and he [...]
Click here to see the full post
The Full Federal Court has allowed the appeal in Chiropedic Bedding Pty Ltd v Radburg Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 142, overturning the decision of the trial judge and holding that a furniture fair involving 250 Australian exhibitors and seven from New Zealand was an “international exhibition”. Section 47(1) provides that the fact that a design, [...]
Click here to see the full post Apotex Pty Ltd (formerly GenRx Pty Ltd) v Sanofi-Aventis [2008] FCA 1194, handed down on Tuesday, determined a validity challenge to the Sanofi-Aventis patent covering the drug Clopidogrel, marketed as Plavix, the second highest selling pharmaceutical worldwide. While claims 1, 10 and 11 were found lacking novelty and claims 6 to 9 lacking inventive step, [...]
Click here to see the full post
In an appeal from a Trade Mark opposition, Ryan J in Neumann v Sons of the Desert SL [2008] FCA 1183, has seemingly significantly broadened the operation of section 42 of the Trade Marks Act. Section 42(b) provides that an application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if its use would [...]
Click here to see the full post Where a NZ resident wishes to file an application for a patent abroad without first filing a corresponding patent application in New Zealand, the resident must obtain a foreign filing permit from the Commissioner under section 25(5) before making the foreign patent application. IPONZ will now accept requests for foreign filing permit by email. The [...]
Click here to see the full post The Patents Bill was introduced to Parliament on 9 July, and will replace the Patents Act 1953. The purpose of the new Bill is to update New Zealand’s patent regime to ensure that it continues to provide an appropriate balance between providing adequate incentives for innovation and technology transfer while ensuring that the interests of [...]
Click here to see the full post