Archive for December, 2008

Wednesday, December 24th, 2008

Australia joins IP treaties

Australia has joined the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and the Patent Law Treaty and has signed a new Agreement to continue its role as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) until 2017. See here for more.

Wednesday, December 24th, 2008

New appointments to ACIP

Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, has announced a new Chair and four new appointments to the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP).

“ACIP provides an important advisory service to the Government and undertakes independent reviews of key intellectual property issues.”

The new council chair is Mr Leon Allen and the four new council members are: Associate Professor Elizabeth Webster, Mr Adam Liberman, Dr Tracie Ramsdale, and Dr Noel Chambers.

Tuesday, December 16th, 2008

IP Australia & IPONZ closures

IP Australia will be closed from 25 December 2008 to 1 January 2009 (inclusive).

The Intellectual Property Office of NZ will be closed from 25 December 2008 to 2 January 2009 (inclusive).

Any deadlines occurring on those dates will be accepted on the next business day.

Tuesday, December 16th, 2008

New High Court judge named

Justice Virginia Margaret Bell (currently of the NSW Supreme Court) has been named as a Justice of the High Court of Australia, with effect from 3 February 2009.  She will be the 48th person, and the fourth woman (and the third on the current court), appointed to the High Court since federation in 1901.  She will replace Justice Michael Kirby.

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

Austal Ships Sinks in the High Court

Last Friday the High Court refused to grant special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court decision in Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd v Stena Rederi Aktiebolag [2008] FCAFC 121, previously discussed here. The transcript of the special leave hearing can be found here.

In relation to the Full Court’s finding that despite claim 1 being incorporated by reference into claim 7, the “width requirements” of the two claims were “true alternatives”, Gummow J noted:

    Of course the ordinary idea is that these claims are dependent. I have said so myself in judgments, but that does not relieve one of the need to construe the particular instrument … Unless you have some point that the Act does not permit the construction of claims in the way that these claims are said to be formulated, it just becomes the particular case.

Monday, December 8th, 2008

The Commissioner adopts a hard line on pharmaceutical extensions in Australia

G.D. Searle LLC applied for an extension of term based on the substance darunavir. Another substance (known as amprenavir), which was within the scope of the claims of the Seale’s patent, had an earlier inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). The Delegate held that Searle’s application did not comply with section 71 of the Patents Act as the application was not made within six months of the date of the earliest first inclusion in the ARTG. The goods containing darunavir were included in the ARTG six years after those containing amprenavir.

In reaching his decision Delegate Barker sought guidance from Justice Bennett’s decision in Pfizer Corp v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCA 1176 in the context of section 77 (the section that calculates the extension term). At [34] Bennett J stated:

“Section 77 refers to the ‘earliest first regulatory approval date’ (emphasis added). This recognises that the patent may cover more than one pharmaceutical substance and provides that the term of the extension is based on the earliest of the approval dates that apply to the patent.”

Having regard to Bennett J’s comments, Delegate Barker held that section 71 must mean that an application for extension of term is to be made within six months of the earliest first inclusion in the ARTG. While this decision seems harsh, particularly as the amprenavir product had been sponsored by a competitor and thus Searle would not gain the full effective patent life of its own product, it is clear that the Commissioner will adopt a hard line with applications for extensions of term. First inclusion in the ARTG means exactly that –the date of first inclusion of any pharmaceutical substance; regardless of the identity of the sponsor.

Delegate Barker also made the following comments concerning the extension of term provisions:

  1. A patentee is not obligated to search the ARTG for all possible pharmaceutical substances covered by their patent, and all possible first regulatory approvals. Patentees can rely on the regulatory approvals that they are aware of. However, once they become aware that there is an earlier first regulatory approval, they have no option but to amend their application, and if necessary make a request under section 223. To do otherwise would be contrary to section 191 of the Patents Act.
  2. The Commissioner is not required to carry out a search, and will record the extension on the basis of the information provided to her. However, the Commissioner is not prevented from undertaking her own investigation, and if she becomes aware of an earlier inclusion she has no option but to bring that to the patentee’s attention so that the application for extension of term is correctly made. The Commissioner’s obligation to maintain the Register of Patents and to remedy any inaccuracies or misleading particulars is paramount.
  3. Regulation 10.7(7) operates when the full facts were not known to the patentee at the time of granting the extension of term.

Monday, December 8th, 2008

Inquiry into gene patents

The Senate Community Affairs Committee in inquiring on the impact of the granting of patents in Australia over human and microbial genes and non-coding sequences, proteins, and their derivatives, including those materials in an isolated form.

Written submissions are invited by 19 March 2009.

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

Police arrest two for copyright offences

The Australian Federal Police yesterday arrested two men in Brisbane for illegally distributing movies and television programs via an offshore website.

They were charged with copyright and proceeds of crime offences.

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

Review of penalties for trade mark counterfeiting

IP Australia has released an Options Paper that considers the penalties for trade mark counterfeiting. Comments are invited by 27 February 2009.