Because I felt like it

A designs case – spare parts

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it / /

Burley J has handed down our first case dealing with the “spare parts” defence in the Designs Act 2003.

At 709 paragraphs, any considered analysis will have to wait for another day (or days). In the meantime, here are his Honour’s conclusions:

707. In these reasons, I conclude that GMGTO has failed to establish the bulk of its claim for design infringement. Despite extensive forensic examination of the business of SSS, it has not established infringement in respect of the importation, keeping for sale or offering for sale of the impugned SSS products in respect of any of the SSS respondent companies. In its claim for infringement by selling, GMGTO has established infringement in respect of 4 representative transactions made by SSS Sydney, 2 representative transactions entered into by SSS Melbourne (but only in part in relation to Transaction 17) and 2 representative transactions entered into by SSS Queensland. The parties must now, on the basis of these reasons, attempt to agree on a formula by which the balance of the transactions the subject of GMGTO’s claim might be resolved. They should also confer and attempt to agree to directions to bring these proceedings to a close. 


708. I have concluded that SSS has substantially failed to establish its case on the cross-claim. It has established that there were unjustified threats insofar as they relate to designs that were never certified, which involves the threats made to Panel House, Carparts and Torq. SSS has also established an unjustified threat in relation to copyright infringement in the case of Holmart. I will hear submissions from the parties as to the appropriate relief to grant, if any.

GM Global Technology Operations LLC v S.S.S. Auto Parts Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 97

A designs case – spare parts Read More »

GSK’s extended release paracetamol patent 2

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it, Patents / /

In addition to dismissing GSK’s appeal against the construction of “basket” (noted here), the Full Court also dismissed Apotex’ cross-appeals on fair basis and best method.

Fair basis

Apotex and Generic Partners also lost their appeals against the trial judge’s ruling that GSK’s patent was fairly based and there had been no failure to disclose the best method.

On fair basis, the claims were consistent with the consistory clauses, but Apotex argued the body of the specification showed that the invention was narrower than the broad consistory clauses. This appears to have been an attempt to read the claims down to two specific formulations discussed in the specification, Formulations C and D.

A key point was whether the trial judge had impermissibly taken into account information in an FDA report to ascertain if the claims travelled beyond the disclosure in the specification. Apotex argued this was excluded by the High Court’s decision in the first Lockwood decision, where it had said at [48]:

If all that is essential in assessing a fair basing objection is recourse to the contents of the specification, there is no call, for example, for an examination (except on construction questions) of common general knowledge (which is essential when considering an objection based on want of an inventive step), or of prior art (which is essential when considering novelty (s 7(1))) …

The Full Court, however, rejected this attack; concluding that the information in the FDA Report (which was common general knowledge) informed how the skilled addressee would understand the claims. At [166], the Full Court said:

What is critical to the pharmacokinetic behaviour of the many formulations within the claims is the dissolution profile (or release rate) of the formulation. The primary judge accepted that the FDA Report recognised that a variation of ±10% percentage points in the release rate was acceptable to the FDA even where no IVIVC had been established. This provides evidentiary support for the finding that the skilled addressee would know that various formulations within the claims apart from Formulations C and D were likely to have similar pharmacokinetic properties. This also provides a complete answer to Apotex’s argument that the skilled addressee (equipped with the common general knowledge) would approach the Patent with an understanding that there would be no reason to think that other formulations within the claims would have a similar pharmacokinetic profile to Formulations C and D in the absence of any established IVIVC.

The Full Court also rejected Apotex’ argument that a claim could not be fairly based unless the specification explained why the claims worked. Making it clear that they were dealing only with the position before the Raising the Bar Act reforms, the Full Court said at [170]:

Of course, it is important to note that s 40(2)(a) requires that the complete specification “describe the invention fully”. A complete specification may still “describe the invention fully” without explaining why the invention works. After all, the inventor, who presumably believes that the invention described works, may not understand why it works. But this does not prevent him or her from obtaining patent protection for the invention.

Best method

For best method, the argument built on the Servier ruling to argue there had been a failure to disclose the best method because the specification did not disclose the particular grade or viscosity of the high viscosity HPMC or the granulation end points used to make Formulations C and D.

At [192], the Full Court accepted that there could be a failure of best method if information was withheld even though it could be ascertained by routine experiment. The Full Court rejected the best method attack, however, finding that the information omitted was inessential manufacturing and production information. According to the Full Court at [201]:

It does not follow merely because the patent applicant uses a particular manufacturing process or a particular excipient in formulating its commercial embodiment that it will form part of the best method. The patent applicant may have adopted a particular process, or used a particular excipient, for reasons that are associated with its own particular circumstances rather than because it believes that they reflect the best method. The best method known to the patent applicant may be one that allows for the optimisation of a formulation by the skilled addressee rather than one that adheres to one specific formulation that the patent applicant seeks to commercialise.

Those preparing specifications might want, first, to note the reservation that the Full Court was not dealing with the “new” post-Raising the Bar regime. Secondly, [192] appears to carry with it the warning that, if one leaves something out, one does so at one’s own peril.

 

 

GSK’s extended release paracetamol patent 2 Read More »

Feedspot’s Top 25 Australian Law blogs

1 Comment / Because I felt like it / / / , , , , , ,

Honoured to be included in Feedspot’s Top 25 Australian law blogs and websites for Australian lawyers.

No 1 is Melbourne Uni’s Opinions on High which is a “must read” for following developments in the High Court.

K & L Gates’ IP Law Watch, which includes posts about Australian law as well as the USA, the UK and EU comes in at No. 10.

There are also two competition / consumer law blogs which I should check out.

Feedspot’s Top 25 Australian Law blogs Read More »

Primary Health Care

1 Comment / Because I felt like it / / / , , , , ,

The Full Court has dismissed Primary Healthcare’s appeal from the decision rejecting its attempt to register “Primary Health Care” for medical services.

The judgment is 438 paragraphs long; Greenwood J providing 77 paragraphs on aspects of s 41 (old form), Katzmann J providing 80 paragraphs and the balance being the leading judgment of Rangiah J.

While Greenwood J and Katzmann J agreed generally with Rangiah J on s 41 (old form), it appears there are some nuances to consider! Katzmann J disagreed with Rangiah J about the application of s 43.

Primary Health Care Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] FCAFC 174

Primary Health Care Read More »

More consultations – copyright edition

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it / / / , , , , , , ,

The Copyright Regulations 1969 and the Copyright (Tribunal Procedure) Regulations 1969 are due to “sunset” – by which they mean “expire” – on 1 April 2018.

The Department of Communications and the Arts, therefore, has released exposure draft regulations for the Copyright Regulations 20171 (pdf) and the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Technological Protection Measures) Regulations 2017 (pdf) for consideration and comment. Fortunately, there is also a 47 page consultation paper (pdf) which identifies various ways in which the new regulations are proposed to differ from the old Regulation through 13 questions.2

Submissions are required by 6 October 2017.

Some of the new matters addressed include

  • prescribed requirements for industry codes under the carriage service provider safe harbours;
  • a number of new prescribed acts where it will be permissible to circumvent technological protection measures:
    • for use of copyright material by a student enrolled in a course of study in an educational institution solely for the purpose of and in circumstances set out in sections 40, 41, 41A, 103A, 103AA or 103C of the Act provided that the use was solely for the purposes of a student complying with the requirements of the course of instruction
    • for use of copyright material by a person who carries out research for an educational institution solely for the purpose of and in circumstances set out in sections 40, 41, 41A, 103A, 103AA or 103C of the Act provided that the use was solely for the purposes of a person carrying out his or her research duties for an educational institution
    • for use of copyright material for educational purposes by or on behalf of a body administering an educational institution, acting under section 200AB of the Act
    • use of copyright material by or on behalf of a person with a disability under Division 2, Part IVA of the Act
    • use by libraries, archives and Key Cultural Institutions (as prescribed in the Copyright Regulations), under Division 3 of Part IVA of the Act
    • use in relation to access by or for persons with a disability (under Division 2 of Part IVA of the Act)
    • for use of copyright material for educational purposes undertaken under the statutory licence under Division 4 of Part IVA of the Act
  • as is the case now, there are provisions for all sorts of notices and even new questions about how they should be published.

At the grumpy old man level:

Why does reg. 12 dealing with “industrially applied” refer to 50 “articles” when section 77 refers to “products”?

Also, in a move designed to cause confusion or which fails to appreciate the difference between a section in an Act and a provision3 in a regulation, we apparently now must refer to provisions in regulations as “sections”. That should make it much easier for everyone!

There is also a Review of the Code of Conduct for Copyright Collecting Societies. If that one keeps you awake at night, you need to get you submissions in by 29 September 2017

  1. The Tribunal Procedure regulations will be rolled into the general Copyright Regulations. ??
  2. At 96 pages in length, I am certainly not to be taken to be guaranteeing those matters are the only new matters or changes. ??
  3. Formerly known as a “regulation”. ??

 

More consultations – copyright edition Read More »

The Australian Bar Association “gets” Australian Barristers Chambers

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it, Trade marks / /

The Australian Bar Association[1] (the ABA) has obtained declarations that Australian Barristers Chambers Pty Ltd[2] and associates (the Chambers entities) have infringed the ABA’s registered trade marks:

  • No 1587902 – AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION; and
  • No 1558252 – for the ABA “logo”:

by using the names:

  • Australian Barrister Chambers;
  • AustBar Chambers; and
  • Australian Barrister,

in close proximity to an image of the scales of justice. For example:

The ABA has also obtained declarations that the Chambers entities have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 18 etc. of the Australian Consumer Law by using those names and also by using:

  • the URL ?www.austbar.com.au?;
  • the name AustBar Chambers;
  • the name AustBar ADR;
  • the tweet identifier ?Australian Barrister@AustBar?;
  • and all of the above in in proximity to, the scales of justice.

The NSW Bar Association[3] has also obtained declarations that its trade marks for BARADR have been infringed, and s 18 of the ACL contravened, by the Chambers entities by the use of BARADR and the domain names ?www.baradr.com.au? and ?www.austbaradr.com.au?.

As James McDougall points out, the decision is 360 paragraphs long and so will no doubt require further, careful consideration. A few points caught my eye skimming through:

One point which should be noted (as clients often raise it) is Greenwood J’s orthodox rejection of the claim that Chambers’ name(s) were defensible because the business name registration or domain name registration system permitted them. Greenwood J pointed out at [175]:

The circumstance that a domain name registration might or might not meet the eligibility criteria for registration is no answer to the question of whether use of such a domain name is either confusing or misleading or constitutes infringement of a registered trade mark, in Australia. Prior to the introduction of the dispute resolution protocols governing domain name registrations, it had become something of an art form for registrants to register, as domain names, the names of traders who had developed a reputation for a name or mark within a jurisdiction and often internationally. Processes were adopted as a result of that practice to try and address that conduct. Whatever the perceived “validity” might be of the domain name registration ?www.austbar.com.au? within the confines of that system and its protocols, austbar and AustBar are terms, names or indicia associated, particularly electronically, with the ABA.

The signpost point

Greenwood J was prepared to find that AUSTRALASIAN BARRISTERS CHAMBERS by itself, or even in the logo form:

by itself for a virtual chambers of barristers would not have infringed the ABA’s rights. However, traffic to the website was directed by the “signpost” <www.austbar.com.au> and that conduct was infringing:

[181] As to the use of the name Australasian Barrister Chambers, I do not regard the use of that name as being either substantially identical with or deceptively similar to either TM 902 or TM 252. However, traffic is directed to a website for and on behalf of that company (and later Austbar PL) by use of the domain name ?www.austbar.com.au?. Use of that domain name involves use of a mark or sign in the course of that company’s trade in services for which TM 902 is registered. I regard the use of austbar in this context as a use of a mark or sign deceptively similar to TM 902. Once a person engages with austbar as the conduit to the website operated by Australasian Barrister Chambers, the sense of confusion or wonderment about whether the person is engaging with the ABA or a provider connected with the ABA remains.

[182] However, by itself, the name Australasian Barrister Chambers might be thought to suggest a set of chambers occupied by barristers “virtually” (and in this case only a virtual presence is relevant), engaged or seeking to be engaged, in work in the Australian and Asian markets for legal services, by seeking direct electronic access to those who engage barristers in that work. In this case, of course, the key electronic point of connection is a domain name using austbar. Barristers might seek greater direct access to the legal profession in this way but it is also important to remember that the website addresses clients and the community directly through the website. Mr Minus, entities controlled by him (or over which he has influence) and other barristers would be entitled, plainly enough, to engage in an undertaking of establishing an online virtual presence for barristers associated together in some way, shape or form. The difficulty is the use of sign, mark or signpost which directs traffic to the site under or by reference to the dominant domain name descriptor austbar associated with the Australian Bar Association. The use of austbar as a mark signposting the electronic route to the site operator is the vice and the infringing conduct.

It will be very interesting to see what form of injunction is fashioned in response to these findings.

Unincorporated associations and ownership trade marks

Greenwood J rejected various attacks on the ABA’s title to its registered trade marks. When the applications for the ABA’s registered trade marks were filed in 2013, “it” was still an unincorporated association, so the 12 members of “its” executive council were the applicants, each described “as trustee for the Australian Bar Association”. Subsequently, three of the original applicants retired from the executive council and assigned their interests to the remaining members. Greenwood J held:

[222] I accept that as a matter of construction of the TM Act, a joint owner may assign his or her “share” or “interest” in the trade mark to another with or without an assignment by any other joint owner. Mr Colbran QC, Mr Traves SC and Mr Walker were joint owners (with the other nine AB Council members) and joint applicants as trustees for the ABA for each trade mark. When they assigned their interest in each trade mark, the incoming assignees took, between them, that aliquot share of the three assignors impressed with the same trust upon which that interest had been held by them. The interest of each of the remaining nine applicant owners as trustees remained entirely as it was.

[223] There is no defect in title in the sequence of transfers as discussed.

Chambers’ disclaimer did not help

Chambers’ website seems to have various forms of disclaimer appearing at different times – his Honour considered the evidence was not fully clear about all the forms or timings.

Greenwood J considered that none of the forms sufficiently proved were sufficient. His Honour explained at [237] that to be effective the disclaimer had to satisfy the following test:

the critical matter in relation to the efficacy of the disclaimer is whether the respondents have discharged the onus of demonstrating that the disclaimer is likely to be seen and understood by all those reasonable fair minded members of the various cohorts engaging with the website (leaving aside extreme and fanciful reactions and isolated exceptions), who would otherwise be misled. In order to be effective, the disclaimer must be such as to leave the fair minded reasonable member of the class in no doubt about the source or origin of the services provided under and by reference to the website; in no doubt about whether the ABA is associated or affiliated with the site operator or the services offered by the operator; and in no doubt about whether the ABA is in some way, shape or form standing behind the website operated by the respondents.

Chambers’ disclaimer did not achieve that. By the time the reader had reached the website, there had already been infringement and misleading or deceptive conduct:

[240]: First, by the time a person engages with the website, they have already been taken there by a sign, the use of which involves an infringement of TM 902 and taken there by reason of conduct in contravention of s 18(1), s 29(1)(g) and s 29(1)(h) of the ACL. The user is already drawn to the site. He or she is already attracted and engaged by the conduct. At that point, the disclaimer needs to operate in such a causative way that it cures an existing problem (if able to do so at all which is likely to be difficult and rare), by making it absolutely clear to the reader who is looking at the site electronically for particular information that this site is not a website operated by the ABA and nor are the services provided by the website the services of the ABA or services associated with or approved by the ABA. One imagines that the disclaimer would need to capture the eyes of the viewer with significant text with appropriate emphasis. Small text located two thirds of the way down the page is never likely to be sufficient and in the facts of this case, it is not sufficient. It is a classic example of the message being “in the small print”.

[241] Second, in the facts of this case, the truth of the matter is that the unlawful conduct was complete once the trade mark infringement had occurred and once the misleading conduct had taken the person to the site. At that point, the disclaimer had to be powerful enough to undo the harm.

Thirdly, some of the public who would land on the website would be consumers looking to access the views of a national body like the ABA, but misdirected there by Chambers’ cues.

One might also question the relevance of any disclaimer to infringement under s 120(1) as opposed to s 120(2) or s 120(3).[4]

Selth v Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 649

  1. Now a company limited by guarantee but, from 1963 until 20 May 2015, an unincorporated association of, you guessed it, Australian barristers.  ?
  2. now in liquidation, and various associated entities including its principals Mr Minus and Ms Minasian.  ?
  3. which was incorporated as long ago as 1936.  ?
  4. See e.g. Optical 88 Limited v Optical 88 Pty Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 1380 at [99]  ?

The Australian Bar Association “gets” Australian Barristers Chambers Read More »

Science Fiction

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it / / / , ,

Noted science fiction author, Kim Stanley Robinson, imagines a future oral argument trying to patent something in light of recent (US) judicial attempts to clarify business method patenting. Imagine what fun he could have in an imaginary place far far away!

Lid dip: PatentlyO

In the meantime, IPwars is also heading far far way for the holidays. Thank you for reading.

Season greetings! Wishing you a happy, safe and prosperous New Year!

Science Fiction Read More »

Little Brown Balls Bounced Again

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it / /

Jessup J has ruled that MALTITOS may be registered for confectionary in the face of MALTESERS.

Mars had successfully opposed Delfi’s application before the Office on the grounds of its prior registration for MALTESERS and its reputation in Australia.

On the s 44 point, both marks consisted of three syllables and had the word “malt” in common as the first syllable, but the different appearance and sound of the remaining two syllables were sufficiently strong that ordinary purchasers would not be caused to wonder if there was a common trade source. Both parties accepted (apparently on the basis of Delfi’s overseas use) that MALTITOS would be pronounced “toes”. Jessup J was favoured with the expert evidence of a linguist, Ass Prof Cox, including that:

the consonant between the final two syllables is ‘t’, phonetically described as a voiceless alveolar stop sound /t/, whereas for ‘Maltesers’ it is ‘s’ pronounced as /z/, a voiced alveolar fricative sound. The difference between the two sounds /t/ and /z/ is a difference of manner of articulation (stop vs fricative) and also of voicing (voiceless vs voiced). /t/ is a voiceless speech sound whereas /z/ is voiced. These differences are highly functional in English and separate words like ‘seat’ vs ‘seize’, ‘shoot’ vs ‘shoes’.

Jessup J conceded he was not in a position “to engage with her in her field of technical expertise”, but her evidence confirmed his impression as a layperson. In his Honour’s view:

if the notional consumer under contemplation was someone whose eye fell upon the applicant’s mark, in isolation, displayed on a package sitting on a rack or shelf, I am quite unpersuaded that it would, because of the limited similarities between that mark and the respondent’s mark, enter his or her mind that the product in question derived, or might have derived, from the same source as products sold under the latter.

The Bali Bra case [1] notwithstanding, Jessup J did not consider that he was concerned with the potential for sales assistants to mishear the product request across a noisy counter.

Delfi tried to argue that s 60 could be invoked only by unregistered marks, but Jessup J, after some consideration, was not prepared to buy that. Rather, the reputation (if proved) provided the basis for the comparison:

the only respect in which s 60 requires an exercise different from that arising under so much of s 44 as relates to deceptive similarity is that the reputation in Australia of the “other” mark must be the reason why the use of the mark proposed to be registered is likely to deceive or cause confusion. What this means in practice is that the notional consumer of average intelligence thinking of making a purchase by reference to goods in association with which the latter mark is used, or intended to be used, is no longer someone who has had no more than some exposure to the “other” mark: he or she is someone who is assumed to have that level of awareness of that mark as is consistent with the content and extent of the reputation of it.

His Honour accepted that MALTESERS had a widespread, solid reputation. As in the Malt Balls case, however, that in the end told against deception:

with a stronger awareness of the respondent’s mark, I consider that such a consumer would be immediately struck by the differences between the two marks, as discussed above. He or she may observe the limited similarities between the marks and, because the subject of the presumptive interest would be confectionery, may assume that the products were of the same nature as those sold under the respondent’s mark, but, giving the matter a moment’s reflection, would readily conclude that those products were not Maltesers. As I say, the strong reputation of the respondent’s mark would, if anything, make that conclusion a more likely one.

Delfi Chocolate Manufacturing S.A. v Mars Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1065

  1. The Bali Bra case is not referred to in the judgment but, consistently with Jessup J’s view, Mason J did appear to be concerned with the prospect that the consumer would have misheard what the sales person said over the phone: “No doubt orders are sometimes placed by telephone. And in considering the likely reaction of a customer it is important to take into account, not the person whose knowledge of the two marks and the goods sold under them enables her to distinguish between them, but the person who lacks that knowledge.”  ↩

Little Brown Balls Bounced Again Read More »

ACIP Final Designs Report

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it, Designs / / / , , , , , ,

ACIP’s final report into its review of the Designs System has been published.

The report is 70 pages (including annexes) – 43 pages for the report itself; and 23 recommendations. Key recommendations include:

  • investigate joining the Hague system and, if a decision is made to join, extend the maximum term of design protection to 15 years;
  • introduce a grace period of 6 months before the filing date, but require an applicant relying on it to file a declaration to that effect;
  • rename a registered design that has not been certified as an “uncertified design”;
  • require a registered design owner to request examination by the first renewal deadline (i.e. 5 years);
  • introduce a system of opposition following certification;
  • improve the process for multiple designs by reducing fees in line with the ALRC’s original proposal;
  • allow fiddling with the statement of newness and distinctiveness until certification;
  • fix up a range of anomalies;
  • specifically include the role of the designs system in any broader review of Australia’s IP framework such as that contemplated by the Competition Policy Review;
  • not introducing an unregistered design right.

ACIP Final Designs Report Read More »

What would Google do [1]

Leave a Comment / Because I felt like it / / / , , ,

According to Google, government requests (or should that be demands) for access to information about Google users (i.e., you) are up 120% around the world.

Now, it has produced a 3+ minute animated video, The Way of the Warrant, to explain how it deals with such, er, “requests” (in the USA).

I wonder what it does in those parts of the world (e.g. here: contrast the “common law” approach to this one) where they don’t have a fourth amendment?

Lid dip: Ride The Lightning.

  1. With apologies to Jeff Jarvis.  ?

What would Google do [1] Read More »