Patents

Peer to patent Down Under

2 Comments / Patents / / / , , , , ,

The pilot project being run be QUT, with support from New York University Law School and IP Australia is nearing the end of its first phase: there are a number of applications open for review until 9 March 2010.

According to IP Australia

The pilot has made a successful start, following its launch in December 2009. The community of reviewers has identified 27 prior art references and contributed 57 comments in the first eight weeks of operation.

A second round of applications will be posted on the website at the conclusion of the first phase and IP Australia is now calling for nominations for potential candidates for review.

For more details and to register as a commenter, click here.

Peer to patent Down Under Read More »

2010 FRANCIS GURRY Lecture

Leave a Comment / Patents / / / , , , ,

Alison Brimelow, immediate past President of the European Patent Office, will give the 2nd annual Francis Gurry Lecture on 1 March 2010 at Melbourne Uni.

Her topic: “not Seeing the Wood for the Trees: Is the Patent System still fit for purpose?”

Details and registrations via here.

2010 FRANCIS GURRY Lecture Read More »

IP Australia more 2nd round consultations

Leave a Comment / IP generally, Patents, Trade marks / / / , , , , ,

IP Australia has issued a second consultation paper – with draft drafting instructions:

  • Flexible Search and Examination
  • Streamlining the Patent Process

As with the first round of the second round, comments are required by 12 Feb 2010.

The new paper and drafting instructions can be found here (pdf).

Links to all the papers, pdf and word, via here.

IP Australia more 2nd round consultations Read More »

Peer to patent Down Under

2 Comments / Patents / / / , , , , , ,

Ben McEniery from QUT writes advises that QUT is running a “peer to patent” pilot project modelled on those running through New York Law School and the JPO.

According to Ben:

Following on from the Peer-to-Patent projects run recently out of the New York Law School (NYLS) and the JPO comes Peer-to-Patent Australia (www.peertopatent.org.au). Peer-to-Patent Australia is a joint initiative of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and IP Australia that is designed to improve the patent examination process and the quality of issued patents. Peer-to-Patent Australia uses Web 2.0 technology to allow experts within the community to review participating patent applications and bring relevant prior art to the attention of IP Australia’s patent examiners.
The project is based on the successful Peer-to-Patent projects run out of the New York Law School (NYLS) in the United States and is the result of the collaborative efforts between QUT and NYLS. The project will initially run as a six-month pilot that will focus on the rapidly advancing technology areas of business methods and computer software. Up to 40 business method, computer software and related patent applications that have been filed in Australia and which are open for public inspection will each be posted on the Peer-to-Patent Australia website for a 90-day period. During that time, members of community can review those applications, submit prior art references and comment on the relevance of any prior art that has been put forward.
At the end of the review period, Peer-to-Patent Australia will forward the top 10 prior art submissions for each application, as selected by the community of reviewers, to IP Australia for consideration in the examination process. The review process in no way abrogates the responsibility of the patent examiner to assess a patent application. Prior art submitted by Peer-to-Patent Australia is solely designed to assist a patent examiner, who remains the arbiter of whether a patent is to be granted.
There are currently 15 patent applications from seven companies open for review. The participating companies include IBM, Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited, General Electric Company, Hewlett-Packard, Residex Pty Ltd, Yahoo and CSIRO.
Since the focus of the pilot is on business methods and related applications, there is an interesting array of new ideas and technologies in the applications that are open for review. Those applications include methods, systems and apparatus for:
– converting a decimal number to a binary representation based on processor size;
– detecting behavioural patterns related to the financial health of a business entity;
– an arrangement where a customer enters into an agreement with a lender to share equity in real estate property;
– efficient cooling of server farms;
– refining mobile device search results using location modifiers;
– integrating browsing histories with media playlists on a media playback device;
– interactive specification of context-sensitive service level agreements;
– controlling a network of trains; and
– gaming machine systems and methods.
Those wishing to review participating patent applications can register at: www.peertopatent.org.au.

Following on from the Peer-to-Patent projects run recently out of the New York Law School (NYLS) and the JPO comes Peer-to-Patent Australia. Peer-to-Patent Australia is a joint initiative of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and IP Australia that is designed to improve the patent examination process and the quality of issued patents. Peer-to-Patent Australia uses Web 2.0 technology to allow experts within the community to review participating patent applications and bring relevant prior art to the attention of IP Australia’s patent examiners.

The project is based on the successful Peer-to-Patent projects run out of the New York Law School (NYLS) in the United States and is the result of the collaborative efforts between QUT and NYLS. The project will initially run as a six-month pilot that will focus on the rapidly advancing technology areas of business methods and computer software. Up to 40 business method, computer software and related patent applications that have been filed in Australia and which are open for public inspection will each be posted on the Peer-to-Patent Australia website for a 90-day period. During that time, members of community can review those applications, submit prior art references and comment on the relevance of any prior art that has been put forward.

At the end of the review period, Peer-to-Patent Australia will forward the top 10 prior art submissions for each application, as selected by the community of reviewers, to IP Australia for consideration in the examination process. The review process in no way abrogates the responsibility of the patent examiner to assess a patent application. Prior art submitted by Peer-to-Patent Australia is solely designed to assist a patent examiner, who remains the arbiter of whether a patent is to be granted.

There are currently 15 patent applications from seven companies open for review. The participating companies include IBM, Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited, General Electric Company, Hewlett-Packard, Residex Pty Ltd, Yahoo and CSIRO.

Since the focus of the pilot is on business methods and related applications, there is an interesting array of new ideas and technologies in the applications that are open for review. Those applications include methods, systems and apparatus for:

  • converting a decimal number to a binary representation based on processor size;
  • detecting behavioural patterns related to the financial health of a business entity;
  • an arrangement where a customer enters into an agreement with a lender to share equity in real estate property;
  • efficient cooling of server farms;
  • refining mobile device search results using location modifiers;
  • integrating browsing histories with media playlists on a media playback device;
  • interactive specification of context-sensitive service level agreements;
  • controlling a network of trains; and
  • gaming machine systems and methods.

Those wishing to review participating patent applications can read more and register here.

x

Peer to patent Down Under Read More »

The patent was valid, but not infringed

Leave a Comment / Patents / / / , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Foster J has ruled that Bitech’s patent for an apparatus that simulates log flames or coal fire in electric or gas fired domestic room heaters is valid, but not infringed.

An essential feature of the patent was that the simulated flames resulted from reflected light, however, the alleged infringements used directly projected light, not reflected light and consequently did not infringe.

The novelty attack failed because the relevant prior art did not possess all the features claimed. The attack on obviousness failed because s 7(3) was not available – the complete specification was filed before the 1990 Act came into force and so the Alphapharm rules were all that was relevant.

Of potentially greater interest, if there had been infringement, Foster J would have found the importer and retailer (Bunnings) were engaged in a common design.

Somewhat bizarrely, on of the respondents denied it had imported the allegedly infringing products, but led no evidence on the point. As a result, Foster J has foreshadowed some consequences in costs for putting the applicant to proof on this point.

Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1393

The patent was valid, but not infringed Read More »

2nd round consultations on IP reform in Australia

1 Comment / IP generally, Patents, Trade marks / / / , , , , , , ,

IP Australia has published a second round of consultation paper (pdf) on its proposals for reform of intellectual property laws and procedures in Australia.

Topics covered include:

  • Getting the Balance Right
    Exemptions to Patent Infringement
    Resolving patent opposition proceedings faster
    Resolving trade mark opposition proceedings faster
    Resolving divisional applications faster
  • Getting the Balance Right
  • Exemptions to Patent Infringement
  • Resolving patent opposition proceedings faster
  • Resolving trade mark opposition proceedings faster
  • Resolving divisional applications faster

Submissions are due by 12 February 2010.

In a move definitely to be encouraged, the proposed drafting instructions have also been published (pdf) for comment.

(Links to the “Word” version as well as the pdf version and the previous round of consultation papers via here.)

Some further papers will be published soon on:

  • Flexible Search and Examination
  • Streamlining the Patent Process

2nd round consultations on IP reform in Australia Read More »

EU: patentability of stem cell

2 Comments / Patents / / / , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greenpeace’s attempts to have “stem cell” patents of Oliver Brüstle revoked moves to the European Court of Justice: The Budnesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court) has referred to the ECJ several questions about the patentability of the use of stem cells to treat various neural diseases.

IPKat has details here, summarising the issues as :

The ECJ will now have to rule on the interpretation of “human embryo” in the sense of art. 6 Directive 98/44/EC. Is a stem cell derived from a blastocyst which has lost its ability to develop into a human still an embryo? If so, is a blastocyst a human embryo? If so, is purely therapeutic use of stem cells a “commercial or industrial purpose” in the sense of art. 6?

By way of comparison, section 18(2) of our Act baldly declares:

Human beings, and the biological processes for their generation, are not patentable inventions.

This provision was introduced at a late stage of the legislative process. Deputy Commissioner Herald had to try and work out its meaning in Fertilitescentrum AB and Luminis Pty Ltd’s Application [2004] APO 19 where he considered that:

36. It seems to me that of these three approaches, only the third approach provides a satisfactory interpretation of s.18(2). Accordingly, in my view the correct interpretation of s.18(2) is ascertained by recognising a human being as being in the process of generation (in either of the two ways I refer to in paragraph 31) from the time of the processes that create a fertilised ovum (or other processes that give rise to an equivalent entity) up until the time of birth.
37. The prohibition of `human beings’ in my view is a prohibition of patenting of any entity that might reasonably claim the status of a human being. Clearly a person that has been born is covered by this exclusion. But to the extent that there is a process of generation of a human being that lasts from fertilisation to birth, I consider that a fertilised ovum and all its subsequent manifestations are covered by this exclusion.

36. It seems to me that of these three approaches, only the third approach provides a satisfactory interpretation of s.18(2). Accordingly, in my view the correct interpretation of s.18(2) is ascertained by recognising a human being as being in the process of generation (in either of the two ways I refer to in paragraph 31) from the time of the processes that create a fertilised ovum (or other processes that give rise to an equivalent entity) up until the time of birth.

37. The prohibition of `human beings’ in my view is a prohibition of patenting of any entity that might reasonably claim the status of a human being. Clearly a person that has been born is covered by this exclusion. But to the extent that there is a process of generation of a human being that lasts from fertilisation to birth, I consider that a fertilised ovum and all its subsequent manifestations are covered by this exclusion.

In application of that ruling, the Examiner’s Manual indicates that the Commissioner’s policy with respect to stems cells is that:

it follows that human stem cells and human stem cell lines per se are patentable because these cells are not considered to be human beings or potential human beings within the meaning of s18(2).

EU: patentability of stem cell Read More »

In re Bilski

4 Comments / Patents / / / , , , , , ,

Patently-O has extracts from and links to transcripts of the oral argument before the US Supreme Court and some informed reportage.

Also, make sure you read Prof. John Duffy’s rebuttal of the charge that the Federal Circuit’s decision in State Street “opening the floodgates” to business method patents is a case of judicial activisim gone wild.

Then ask yourself, would the world really be a better place if we all adopted the European practice of banning the patenting of  business methods and computer programs “as such“?

In re Bilski Read More »

A mere collocation

Leave a Comment / Patents / /

The Full Federal Court (Finn, Bennett and Middleton JJ) has allowed an appeal against the grant of an interlocutory injunction which prevented Smith & Nephew entering the market .

The interlocutory injunction had been granted on the basis of a threatened infringement of claim 49 – apparently, only infringement of claim 49 had been pursued for the purposes of the interlocutory injunction.

Claim 49 was for:

An apparatus for applying negative pressure to a wound beneath a fluid-impermeable seal comprising: a screen means for positioning beneath said seal for preventing overgrowth of tissue in the wound, said screen means being sufficiently porous to allow gases to reach the wound and sufficiently rigid to prevent wound overgrowth, said screen means comprising an open cell polymer foam section configured to overlie the wound such that said negative pressure is maintained within said foam and applied to the wound; a flexible tube having an inlet and inserted into said open cell polymer foam section and an outlet end for extending from beneath said seal and for supplying said negative pressure; and wherein said apparatus is in an aseptic package.

The Full Court considered that all of the integers interacted in combination, save for the aseptic package. The aseptic package, while an essential integer, did not interact with the other integers in any meaningful way to produce negative pressure on a wound

25 There is no doubt that claim 49 is a claim to a combination. The question is whether each of the integers of the claim interact to produce negative wound pressure. It is to be asked how, if at all, does the aseptic package interact with the other integers to produce the result of negative wound pressure. It is the mere bag in which the device that ‘does the work’ is stored before use. It is discarded before any negative would pressure is applied. No doubt it is beneficial to have sterile packaging for a therapeutic device, however, the aseptic bag itself does nothing to cause, limit or affect the functional result of negative wound pressure as desired.

Accordingly, the claim was for a “mere collocation” and so was invalid.

Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences [2009] FCAFC 142

A mere collocation Read More »

Patentable Subject Matter: ACIP options paper

Leave a Comment / Patents / / / , , ,

ACIP has published an Options Paper in connection with its review of “patentable subject matter”.

Press release here.

Options Paper here.

The options under consideration are too far reaching for a “sound bite”.

For example (from the Press Release)

“The test for patentable subject matter in Australia is linked to legislation introduced
in England in 1623 so it really does need addressing within the context of modern
research and business,”

“The test for patentable subject matter in Australia is linked to legislation introduced in England in 1623 so it really does need addressing within the context of modern research and business”.

Of course, the fact that this disparaged Jacobean test is perhaps the most  modern, flexible, telelogical concept on our statute book since the NRDC case (in 1959) could be overlooked.

Also (from the Press Release):

ACIP have also proposed possible safeguards to ensure public concerns are reflected in decisions to grant patents.

Submissions by Friday 13th (!) November 2009.

Patentable Subject Matter: ACIP options paper Read More »