Category Archives: Patent

The test case assessing the validity of patent claims directed towards genetic material will begin in the Federal Court next week.

The USPTO have released proposed rules packages under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) which are open for comment.

We are looking for a Trainee Patent Attorney – Engineering (Mechanical or Civil) in our Melbourne Office.  Applications close Monday 30 January 2012.  e-mail to: confidential@pof.com.au

The State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) have commenced a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO).

As noted previously, the decision in Austal Ships v Stena regarding the evidentiary onus placed on an opponent has made establishing lack of inventive step as part of a patent opposition very difficult. However, the recent decision in Aspirating IP Limited v Vision Systems Limited [2010] FCA 1061 appears to have breathed new life into [...]

IP Australia is currently implementing changes to the way in which it handles divisional patent applications. The intention of the changes is to reduce delays in achieving resolution (acceptance or refusal) of divisional applications.

The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down its much awaited Bilski v Kappos decision. The decision is available here [PDF]. Bilski’s patent application was directed to the management of fixed bill energy contracts, in which consumers pay monthly prices for their future energy consumption in advance of winter based on their past energy use. The [...]

The Patents Bill will be re-introduced to the New Zealand Parliament today for its Second Reading. The Report of the Commerce Committee dated 30 March 2010, which includes recommended amendments to the Patents Bill will be debated and voted on by the House of Representatives. If the Bill receives its Second Reading, it will go [...]

In Richwood Creek Pty Ltd v Williams [2010] FCA 196 the Federal Court has reversed a decision of the Patent Office to uphold a patent opposition. The opposition was decided on the ground that the patent applicant alone was not entitled to the grant of a patent. Spender J disagreed that one of the inventors’ [...]