Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Licensing recorded music

While the European Commission is trying to reduce the number of licensors you have to deal with (and so reduce transaction costs), the Australian legislation as interpreted by the courts is causing them to proliferate: IPKat on Max Planck comments on draft directive on collective rights management Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited v Commercial Radio Australia Limited [2013] FCAFC 11 Yes, I know the EU is grappling with territorial issues.. Read More

Myriad wins Down Under

Nicholas J has ruled that Myriad’s patent for isolated gene sequences relating to BRCA1 are patentable subject matter for the purposes of Australia’s Patents Act 1990. Claim 1 of the Patent (No. 686004 entitled “In vivo mutations and polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene”) is for: An isolated nucleic acid coding for a mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide, said nucleic acid containing in comparison to the BRCA1 polypeptide.. Read More

Business method patents: Federal Court retreating?

Emmett J has dismissed Research Associates’ appeal from the Commissioner’s rejection of an attempt to patent a method for calculating an Index for using in financial investing. Claim 1 was for: A computer-implemented method for generating an index, the method including steps of: (a) accessing data relating to a plurality of assets; (b) processing the data thereby to identify a selection of the assets for inclusion in the index based.. Read More

Property in the proceeds of infringement

In a decision which no doubt has some further distance to run, Newey J (sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court in England) has ruled that the owner of copyright does not have a proprietary interest in the proceeds (read profits) made by an infringer of the copyright. Harris et al. are alleged to be the person (or persons) behind the Newzbin file sharing sites which, amongst other.. Read More

Google not liable for sponsored links

The High Court has unanimously allowed Google’s appeal from the Full Federal Court’s ruling that Google was liable for misleading or deceptive statements in sponsored links. According to the Court’s summary (pdf): The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Google did not create the sponsored links that it published or displayed. Ordinary and reasonable users of the Google search engine would have understood that the representations conveyed by the sponsored.. Read More