Archive for the ‘Patents’ Category

Refusing a lapsed patent application and other powers of the Commissioner

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

The Commissioner of Patents has power to refuse an application even after it has lapsed (but is still capable of revival by payment of “late” fees). The Full Court has also affirmed the Commissioner’s power to set a two month time limit for response (especially where she actually allows six months) and to institute a hearing on her own motion.

In some ways, this is a “silly” case, but it does explain how the application process and restoration of a lapsed application works. The chronology was as follows:

  • In December 2011, Miles requested examination of his patent application.
  • In May 2012, the Commissioner’s delegate raised objections to grant, giving Miles two months in which to overcome the objections or risk the Commissioner making a direction to amend under s 107 or refusing the application.
  • Miles did not respond.
  • In September 2012 (i.e., 4 months later), the Commissioner wrote advising that, as no response had been received, the matter would be set down for hearing and allowing one month for submissions to be filed. The Commissioner’s letter warned that it was possible for the Commissioner to refuse the application or direct amendment and inviting Miles to submit his own amendments.
  • October 2012 was the fifth anniversary of the application and continuation fees were payable. Miles did not pay the continuation fees.
  • On 1 November 2012, the Commissioner refused Miles’ application on the basis that objections to grant had been appropriately raised and not overcome.
  • On 28 March 2013, Miles paid the continuation fee (under s 142) and sought to amend the patent application.

The Commissioner said “bad luck, your application has already been refused” (or words to that effect).

Miles sought judicial review under s 39B of the Judiciary Act unsuccessfully. The Full Court (Bennett, Greenwood and Middleton JJ) dismissed his appeal.

Miles’ first argument was that the Commissioner had no power to refuse his application (in November 2012) because his application had already lapsed in October 2012 when he failed to pay the continuation fees.

The Full Court was having none of that. It was predicated on a misunderstanding of reg. 13.3(1) and 13.3(1A). Section 142(2)(d) provides that a patent application lapses if the applicant does not pay a continuation fee within the “prescribed period”. What constitutes the “prescribed period” is defined by reg. 13.3(1) and (1A):

(1) For paragraph 142(2)(d) of the Act:

>(a) a continuation fee for an application for a standard patent is payable for a relevant anniversary at the last moment of the anniversary; and

>(b) the period in which the fee must be paid is the period ending at the last moment of the anniversary.

(1A) However, if the continuation fee is paid within 6 months after the end of the relevant anniversary (6 month period):

>(a) the period mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) is taken to be extended until the fee is paid; and

>(b) the continuation fee includes the additional fee stated in item 211 of Schedule 7; and

>(c) the additional fee is payable from the first day of the 6 month period.

Reg. 13.3(1) and (1A) were not to be read in some bifurcated manner, but in combination. This meant that, if the continuation fee was paid in the 6 month grace period, the “prescribed period” was extended up until the date the fee was paid, i.e. 28 March 2013. As the continuation fee was paid in this case within the 6 month period, therefore, the application was still on foot when the Commissioner refused it in November 2012.

The Full Court went on to reject Miles’ arguments that the Commissioner had no power to set a two month time limit for response to the Examiner’s report in May 2012[1] or to unilaterally institute a hearing.

One “odd” outcome of this, however, is that Miles’ application would indeed have lapsed in October 2012 if he had not paid the continuation fee in the grace period. In that case, the Commissioner would not have had power to refuse the application. I am not sure how that would help Miles either as, presumably, by that stage it would be too late to file another application.

Miles v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 109


  1. The Full Court essentially adopted the primary judge’s reasons at [55] to [93] and pointed out that Miles had been given opportunitites to address the grounds of objection and had failed to take any of them up.  ?

Isolated genes still patentable in Australia

Friday, September 5th, 2014

A Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Dowsett, Kenny, Bennett & Middleton JJ) have dismissed the appeal in the Myriad litigation; upholding Nicholas J’s ruling that isolated genes and isolated gene sequences are patentable subject matter in Australia.

Kim Weatherall has pointed out this is a different result to the ruling in the USA but, given the illogicality of the US Supreme Court’s position (e.g. here and here), surely that is no bad thing.

D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115

Five Judges speak with one voice on Australian Patent Law Construction and Fair Basis*

Friday, August 22nd, 2014

The Rosuvastatin case is that rare beast – a decision of a 5 member Full Bench of the Federal Court. It canvases many issues and, no doubt, we shall be picking over it for years to come. Susan Gatford, at the Victorian Bar, has kindly provided a guest post on the section 40 issues. Take it way Sue:

The judgment in AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99 is an authoritative statement by a Full Court of the Federal Court of current patent law in Australia on novelty, obviousness, fair basis and indirect infringement. Further, neither the parties nor the Full Court at [37] demurred from the primary judge’s summary of the relevant authorities as to what constitutes common general knowledge and the attributes of the hypothetical skilled addressee. Likewise, neither the parties nor the Full Court at [90] disagreed with the primary judge’s exposition of the principles governing the construction of the claims and body of a specification of a patent.

The Full Court was principally constituted with five justices so as to address issues in regard to obviousness[1]. But the decisions at first instance and on appeal, taken together, also provide a “go to” exposition of most of the legal issues that commonly arise in Australian patent cases.

The Court’s views on the different validity grounds and on indirect infringement each warrant separate commentary and analysis. This article considers one of the construction issues, the decision as to fair basis and the interplay between construction and fair basis.

Background

Statins are a group of drugs that reduce the levels of cholesterol in the blood. Rosuvastatin (marketed in Australia as CRESTOR) is a very successful statin. No patent was ever filed in Australia for the rosuvastatin chemical compound. But AstraZeneca (Az) owns a number of secondary Australian patents relating to rosuvastatin. Two such patents are the subject of the appeal decision. One (the low dose patent) is for the administration of a particular dose or dosage range of rosuvastatin for the treatment of excess cholesterol in the blood stream. The other (the cation patent) is for a pharmaceutical composition (combination) of rosuvastatin mixed with certain inorganic salts.

The Full Federal Court’s decision affirms, although with some differences of reasoning and grounds, Apotex’s victory last year before Justice Jagot, in which it obtained orders revoking both patents.

The outcome of the appeal

The low dose patent was held:

  • to have named the wrong inventor (with a discussion of the current and former entitlement provisions of the Patents Act);
  • to be obvious (with a discussion of the starting point at which obviousness is to be considered and the impact of section 7 of the Patents Act); and
  • not to have been infringed (with a discussion of section 117 of the Patents Act)
  • 

However, reversing the decision of the primary judge, the Full Court held that the low dose patent was novel despite the existence of prior publications disclosing both rosuvastatin and a dosage range that covered the dosage range the subject of the claims.

The cation patent was held:

  • to have impermissibly claimed too early a priority date;
  • to have been anticipated (not novel);
  • to be obvious; and
  • not to be fairly based on the specification (despite the presence of claim 1 as a consistory clause within the body of the specification).

The five judges agreed with each other on all issues. Justices Besanko, Foster, Nicholas and Yates wrote a joint judgment which dealt with all issues except obviousness. Justice Jessup wrote a separate judgment on obviousness with which the rest of the Court agreed.

Patent construction and section 40 issues in relation to the cation patent.

The cation patent was for rosuvastatin mixed with certain multivalent cation inorganic salts. The salts were not therapeutic – their role was said to be simply to stabilize the rosuvastatin and prevent it from degrading. The patent specification described rosuvastatin and various salts being mixed together into a tablet which was then coated.
There was a disagreement between the parties as to the meaning of the words “pharmaceutical composition” in claim 1 of the cation patent. Apotex submitted that in the context of the cation patent “pharmaceutical composition” referred only to the rosuvastatin-salt mixture, and did not include the tablet coating. This was because the proposed Apotex product did not have a rosuvastatin-salt mixture – in its tablet the salt was placed into the coating, not mixed with the rosuvastatin.

Az, in order to maintain its infringement case, argued that the words “pharmaceutical composition” in claim 1 meant the whole tablet i.e. the means by which rosuvastatin is administered or delivered to the patient, whatever form that takes. The primary judge agreed with Az, as did the Full Court.

But, Apotex said, if this is what claim 1 means then it is not fairly based on the specification, as there is no real and reasonably clear disclosure in the specification of a pharmaceutical composition in which the relevant inorganic salt is contained solely within the coating of the pharmaceutical composition and not mixed with the active ingredient, being rosuvastatin. They noted that every disclosure in the cation patent of the use of a relevant salt, including in each of the examples, involved the salt being mixed or blended with rosuvastatin. They also noted that the only theory advanced in the specification to explain how the multivalent cation salt improved the stability of rosuvastatin was that it stabilised its chemical structure, which the experts’ evidence confirmed required “intimate mixing”.

Az did not dispute this evidence but submitted that the fact that claim 1 was repeated in the body of the specification as a consistory clause was itself sufficient for fair basis, relying on statements in Lockwood Security Products Pty Limited v Doric Products Pty Limited (2004) 217 CLR 274 (Doric No 1) at [38] and [91] to [93]. The primary judge had agreed with that submission.

The Full Court, however, disagreed. It said at [421]

“The question that must be addressed is whether there is a real and reasonably clear disclosure in the specification of an invention in which there might be no mixture of the active ingredient and inorganic salt. In our opinion, the specification, when read as a whole, does not make any such disclosure even in the most general sense.”

In other words, the claim was for a composition which contained three things – rosuvastatin, salt and a coating. The claim did not require the salt and the rosuvastatin to be mixed, so the salt could either be with the rosuvastatin or in the coating. In the invention disclosed in the specification, though, the salt and the rosuvastatin were always mixed. The possibility of the salt not being mixed with the rosuvastatin was not contemplated and not disclosed.

Section 40(3) of the Patents Act as applied to this patent (i.e. as it stood before the 2013 amendments to the Patents Act) requires that “the claim or claims must be … fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification”.

The Court’s finding of lack of fair basis refocuses attention on the construction of claim 1 contended for by Apotex. But the Court was not prepared, in light of the authorities, to read claim 1 as requiring the salt and the rosuvastatin to be mixed, as it considered that to do so would be to draw an impermissible gloss from the specification.

The Court was, however, prepared to use section 40 to strike down what it evidently regarded as a claim that was too widely drawn. Whether the judgment will result in an increase in the number of successful challenges based on section 40 grounds remains to be seen.

AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99

 

Thanks, Sue.


  1. As to which see Mark Summerfeild’s recent blog post  ?

The rosuvastatin patents are still invalid

Tuesday, August 12th, 2014

If you have been waiting for the outcome of the appeals from Jagot J’s decision to revoke 3 of AstraZeneca’s patents relating to rosuvastatin and the treatment of hypercholesterolemia

  • one of the extremely rare 5 member Full Benches of the Federal Court -

the decision is out and the patents are still invalid.

Jessup J agreed with Besanko, Foster, Yates and Nicholas JJ, but delivered separate reasons on the question of obviousness.

At 180 pages, further comment will have to wait.

AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99

Patent application data in Australia

Monday, August 11th, 2014

IP Australia has published a report looking at patent backlogs, inventories and pendency. [1]

The Report has been prepared using the same framework used by the USPTO and UK IPO.

Apparently, the number of pending applications peaked in 2009 at 100,000. By 2013, it was down to 90,000. The number of applications being filed has finally recovered to “pre-GFC” levels.

There are 278 pending applications per examiner; the lowest number since 2001. In the USA (which has a much larger number of applications) the number is 169 applications per examiner and, in the UK, 198 per examiner.

There were 26,394 applications filed in 2008. Approximately 52% passed through examination and opposition (if any) to grant. Some 9.4% were still “pending” as at May 2013.

About 20% of applications made in 2008 were the subject of a voluntary request for examination; almost all of the remainder are subject to a direction to request examination.

Almost 20% of all applications lapsed or were withdrawn when the Commissioner directs the applicant to request examination. Almost 15% lapsed or were withdrawn at the first report stage. A further 2% lapsed or were withdrawn after further reports.

950 of the applications made in 2008 (0.36%) have been subject to opposition (to date). Of those, the opposition led to only 68 (0.026%) being rejected or withdrawn.

You can read the Report here.

The UK IPO and USPTO ‘Working draft‘ from last year (pdf) (media release).

Patently-O has been looking at aspects of the US data here, here and here.


  1. Ahmer Iqbal Siddiqui, Report on patent backlogs, inventories and pendency. IP Australia Economic Research Paper 01.  ?

Something to think about in drafting an exclusive licence

Thursday, July 10th, 2014

The Full Court has declared that a former exclusive licensee has to contribute towards the costs of patent infringement litigation. Cementech has a patent, No 2007219709, for a “matrix of masonry elements and method of manufacture thereof”. It had granted Austral an exclusive licence for a term of 4 years commencing in February 2010. Austral had an to renew, but didn’t take it up. There were provisions in the licence agreement dealing with infringements. There was the usual clause requiring Austral to tell Cementech if it came across any infringements. Then clause 9.2 provided:

9.2 Infringement Actions

(a) Upon receipt of an Infringement Notice [Cementech] may, at its sole discretion, take all steps reasonably required to protect the Intellectual Property from infringement.

(b) In the event that [Cementech] elects to initiate proceedings for prosecuting or defend any Claims with respect to the Intellectual Property, all expenses incurred by [Cementech] in conducting any such proceedings or defending any Claims will be borne by the parties equally and all amounts received (including in respect of costs) from settlements or adjudications will be dealt with in the manner described in clause 9.2(f).

….

Cl 9.2(f) went on to provide for distribution of any monetary awards resulting from the litigation to pay down the costs and the balance to be split between the parties in proportion to their losses suffered.

Cementech started infringement proceedings against Adbri during the term of Austral’s licence. Austral first tried to argue that, since it hadn’t given notice of the infringement to Cementech, cl. 9.2 didn’t apply. That went for six (well, five reasons):

  • the words “in the event that” in cl 9.2(b) established a condition, but not one triggered by any notice from Austal
  • the parties had a common interest in stopping infringements
  • Cementech could take proceedings regardless of receipt of a notice from Austral
  • (as is quite common) the scheme of the clause allowed Cementech first choice whether to sue or not – Austal did get rights to sue during the term if Cementech did not take action
  • under the terms of the licence, Austral did not have a discretion to notify infringements, if it became aware of one, it had an obligation to notify.

The real bite in the clause, however, is that the Full Court held it meant Austal had to pay half the costs of the infringement action against Adbri even after the licence had come to an end. Austral argued that the licence having terminated, the obligation terminated too citing the Westralian Farmers case. The Full Court however held:

It must have been in the common contemplation of the parties that Cementech might commence proceedings during the term which would continue after the expiry of the term. Clause 9.2(b), if engaged by the commencement of proceedings during the term, survives termination of the Licence Agreement, as does cl 9.2(f). It is apparent from the scheme of cl 9.2, which is a code in respect of litigation commenced during the term as Cementech submitted, that the parties intended the cost burden provision (cl 9.2(b)) and the proceeds benefits provision (cl 9.2(f)) to survive. That intention prevails …

The Full Court pointed out that under clause 9.2(f) Austal had a right to claim its proportionate share of any pecuniary remedies even after the licence terminated. The Full Court noted tersely:

The examples of commercial impracticality advanced by Austral apply equally during the term. The parties simply did not provide details about how their relationship in respect of the litigation other than in respect of cost sharing and benefit sharing would be regulated. But that is no reason to rewrite the commercial deal they did. Nor is the fact that, as it turns out, Austral does not wish to fund these particular proceedings.

If you are thinking about using this clause as a model for your future contracts, the Full Court recognised that the scheme set up by the parties might not work to either’s benefit in different cases:

Austral’s reluctance to be bound by cl 9 is understandable. The provision is capable of working to its disadvantage. For example, Austral (as apparently in the present case) may not agree that there has been any infringement and thus may not wish to fund any part of the proceedings. Austral’s interest in the proceedings may be limited depending on the nature of the alleged infringement and the time during the term when the proceedings are commenced (presumably, Austral’s interest might be greater if proceedings are commenced earlier rather than later in the term). Austral may well perceive, accurately, that it will pay 50% of the costs of expensive proceedings which will lead to no or little reward for it if Cementech manages to obtain any proceeds from the litigation. But all of these circumstances might apply equally to Cementech in different circumstances. As Cementech submitted, the potential for an unequal commercial interest in proceedings results from the deal the parties did when they entered into the Licence Agreement.

Austral Masonry (NSW) Pty Ltd v Cementech Pty Limited [2014] FCAFC 72 (Jagot, Nicholas and Yates JJ)

ACIP on innovation patents

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

ACIP’s final report into Innovation Patents has been published.

Key points / recommendations:

  • ACIP can’t find evidence to support conclusion that innovation patents promote innovation

 

  • ACIP recommends that, if the innovation patent system be retained:

 

    • there be a new “innovation” threshold:

amending the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to raise the level of innovation to a level above the current innovative step level, but below the inventive step level that applies to standard patents. A suitable level of innovative step would be provided by the test of inventiveness described by the High Court of Australia in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9: (1980) 144 CLR 253; (1980) 29 ALR 29 with a modification to that test to include the current definition of what is relevant CGK. In order to be innovative an invention would need to be non-obvious by reference to CGK either within or outside the patent area but not by reference to prior art information that is not part of CGK at the priority date of the relevant claims of the innovation patent. This would be a lower threshold than is applied to standard patents, where the invention must be non-obvious by reference to the CGK and any piece of prior art.

I suppose that would at least be a test that requires some advance over the prior art and is (at least in theory) something which those of us who started growing up under the 1952 Act should be familiar with.

    • a request for examination must be filed within 3 years
    • the term “patent” be reserved for certified “patents” only;
    • exclude from innovation patents “all methods, all processes and all systems “.

The Government has indicated it will respond in due course.

ACIP’s Innovation Patent Inquiry page.

Link to the Final Report (pdf).

Alice Corp not patentable subject matter in the USA

Friday, June 20th, 2014

The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Alice Corporation’s claim to patent a computer-implemented method and system for exchanging obligations is not patentable subject matter under US law:

Patently-O summary here.

Another take here (lid dip: Matt Bromley).

Alice Corporation v CLS Bank International (pdf).

A patents case goes to the High Court

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

The High Court has granted special leave to Alphapharm to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision to allow Lundbeck to apply to extend the term of its Lexapro patent 10 years late. The High Court was not interested at all in the exercise of the discretion to allow a 10 year extension. the question is whether a power to extend time exists at all.

The extension of term provisions for pharmaceutical patents are found in s 70 and s 71(2). Section 71(2) provides that:

An application for an extension of the term of a standard patent must be made during the term of the patent and within 6 months after the latest of the following dates:

(a) the date the patent was granted;

( b) the date of commencement of the first inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods of goods that contain, or consist of, any of the pharmaceutical substances referred to in subsection 70(3);

(c) the date of commencement of this section.

It was common ground that Lundbeck’s application was outside the latest of the possible dates.

However, the Patents Act also provides a power to grant extensions of time in s 223.

Lundbeck’s problem – if it turns out to be a problem – is that s 223(11) says that s 223 cannot be used to extend the time for doing “prescribed actions” and reg. 22.11 specifies as one of the prescribed actions:

filing, during the term of a standard patent under subsection 71(2) of the Act, an application under subsection 70(1) of the Act for an extension of the term of the patent;

In the Federal Court,[1] Yates J at [50] found that Lundbeck’s “application” for an extension of time fell outside this because it really involved 2 requirements:

The making of an application under s 70(1) of the Act is governed by two time limits: the application must be made “during the term of the patent” and within six months of the applicable date in s 71(2)(a) to (c). Both time limits must be observed in order to make an application.

While the requirement that the application be made “during the term of the patent” was caught and so excluded by s 223(11), the second requirement – within 6 months of the applicable date – was not.

The High Court (Kiefel J and Keane J) have granted Alphapharm special leave to argue that, as a matter of construction, there was really only one application.

Lundbeck boldly tried to argue that special leave should not be granted because the issue raised no question of general importance: there not that many applications for an extension of time to apply for an extension of the term of a pharmaceutical patent. Kiefel J retorted sharply:

KIEFEL J: But the extension of a patent is itself an important matter, is it not?

MR NIALL: It is.

KIEFEL J: Very important.

It does raise an interesting question. The extended term expired back in December 2012. Alphapharm and others, however, had entered the market when the original term of the patent expired on 13 June 2009 and before Lundbeck’s application for an extension of time in which to file its application to extend the term had been finalised. Therefore, it would appear that the potential exposure of the generics companies to damages awards (or an account of profits) is up for grabs; i.e., another 3 years.

Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2014] HCATrans 79

Lid dip: Opinions on High

Some other commentaries: here, here and here.


  1. Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] FCAFC 129 (Jessup and Jagot JJ agreeing).  ?

Abstract principle, fine art or just unknowable

Friday, May 9th, 2014

Mr Lisica applied for a patent, claim 1 of which reads:

An auscultative method that expounds upon the Natural Harmonics Series (NHS) and Mr Svetko Lisica’s Scientific Theory for Music’s decipherability and attunement, from the Invention’s Programmatic Specificity in a soniferous or visual realm for a new, useful, innovative and original Composition Engine and via its computations, providing the compositional harmonic materials that are put in the states of being manifested by the Invention’s unprecedented and original Musical Instrument and Sonic Biodynamical Brain Entrainment Bridge for Binaural Beats, into a stable unit of measure in exactitude for a tuning medium, herewith this Invention is the state or fact of existence, a practical Universal Intonation System that belongs with Music, The Absolute and The Beyond.

(The other claims are all dependent.)

Despite submissions to the Examiner, the Delegate at a hearing and an appeal to the Court, no-one (apart from Mr Lisica) really has any idea what the claimed invention is.

The Delegate rejected Mr Lisica’s application on the grounds that it was not a manner of manufacture and contravention of s 40(2) – the old form.[1]

Jessup J found only one objection was necessary: non-compliance with s 40(3) (in its old form):

The claims are, of course, critical to the exercise in which the court is now involved. It is here that the applicant encounters what is, for a court operating without the assistance of expert evidence, a fundamental difficulty. In my view, Claim 1, set out above, is not clear and succinct, as required by s 40(3) of the Patents Act. As a statement marking out the area of the public monopoly which the applicant seeks, the claim falls well short of the standard of clarity required. The ground of objection referred to in s 59(c) is substantiated in relation to the claim. I do not, therefore, consider that there is no lawful ground of objection of the kind referred to in s 49(1)(b). I would exercise the discretion arising under s 49(2) adversely to the applicant.

The Commissioner (or, rather, her officers) were a bit naughty. Mr Lisica had submitted 6 files in support of his application. The Examiner and the Delegate only opened and read 2 of them. Apparently, the other files were in SCM format, which the Patent Office couldn’t open.[2]

The naughty bit: no-one told Mr Lisica that the Patent Office didn’t read the files (because they couldn’t open them) until everyone got to Court for the trial. As Jessup J explained:

It may have required a modicum of ingenuity to open the SCM files – in a demonstration in court, the applicant himself did so. But the troubling aspect of the omission referred to above is not whether it was reasonable of the applicant to have expected the examiner and the delegate to open the files, but that the applicant was never informed of the difficulty which they were, apparently, experiencing, nor invited to remedy it. The examiner’s report was supplied to the applicant in the normal course, and it gave him no reason to suspect that four out of the six files which he had submitted had not been viewed or considered for such assistance as they may have provided in conveying the nature of the invention and how it was best performed. In that state of ignorance, the applicant made his submissions to the delegate, and he too dealt with the problems which the application involved without viewing all the files which constituted the application.

(His Honour did note that he was not suggesting any different result might have occurred if the correct process had observed.) Jessup J seems to be contemplating not allowing the Commissioner her costs:

In the orders which accompany these reasons, I shall lay out a timetable for the making of written submissions on costs. I shall, of course, consider any submission which the Commissioner makes in that regard, but I think I should say at this stage that one issue upon which I would expect to be addressed in that submission is whether the circumstances most recently discussed above in these reasons should be considered relevant to such entitlement to costs as the Commissioner might otherwise have as the successful party in this appeal.

Lisica v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCA 433


  1. Relying amongst other things on Research Affiliates.  ?
  2. His Honour drily noted, even a file in .doc format does not comply with the Commissioner’s requirements.  ?