IPwars has headed off for the summer sun. Thank you for reading during the year, I hope you found something interesting and informative. In the meantime, I wish you the compliments of the season and hope to see you again in the New Year (hopefully after Australia day celebrations).
Back in May, the Copyright Tribunal bumped up the fee payable for using recorded music in gym classes to $15 a class or $1 per attendee. The Full Court has an allowed an “appeal” from that decision on the grounds of denial of natural justice. In setting the rate, the Tribunal had rejected the market survey relied on by the applicants, but had used the ‘rough and ready’ “pilot”. When the applicants opened.. Read More
(Apparently) unlike its Australian counterpart, the High Court in England has reportedly found copyright in newspaper headlines (here and here). In a variation on the theme, the Court of Appeal has referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice relating to the originality of football fixtures, so may be some definitiveness and uniformity (at least in Europe) will emerge in due course.
The Commonwealth Senate’s Community Affairs committee tabled its report into the patenting of genes towards the end of last month. After commenting on the still continuing cases (in both the USA and here), the Committee noted: The Committee will continue to monitor these important international and national legal developments, and notes that these cases may bring greater clarity to the application of the invention-discovery distinction to isolated genetic materials. As part of its.. Read More
The Full Court (Keane CJ, Perram and Yates JJ) have dismissed Telstra’s appeal in the Phone Directories case. First impressions. Given the (arguably) disparate reasoning in the 2 judgments in IceTV, the Chief Judge has to weave a rather tricky path. His Honour nonetheless clearly recognised:  The reasoning of all the judges of the High Court in IceTV requires a revision of the relevance of skill and labour to the subsistence of.. Read More
The JIPLP blog has a succinct online article, by Brian Whitehead and Richard Kempner, analysing Floyd J’s decision in Schütz (UK) Limited v Werit UK Limited, Protechna SA  EWHC 660 on whether a defendant’s activities amounted to permissible repair or reconditioning of a patented product or infringement.