Perram J has reluctantly found that actual control of the licensee is not necessary and potential control will suffice for authorised use under the Trade Marks Act 1995.
The Full Court has partially allowed Tamawood’s appeal, and denied Habitare’s appeal from Collier J’s findings about copyright infringement.
The Full Federal Court has allowed the Commissioner of Taxation’s appeal from Pagone J’s ruling allowing SPI Powernet a deduction for the value of its copyright in the plans, drawings and manuals for its electricity power generation network.
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.. Read More
Sanofi sued Apotex (then known as GenRx) for infringement of its “clopidogrel patent”. It obtained interlocutory injunctions against Apotex against the sale of Apotex’ product and preventing Apotex from applying to list its product under the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme (PBS). As a condition of the grant of those interlocutory injunctions, Sanofi gave the “usual undertaking as to damages”: “(a) submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to.. Read More
IP Australia has released the Australian Intellectual Property Report 2015, with statistics on IP filings and grants and trends.
The Commonwealth Government has introduced into Parliament the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. This bill will implement the the Government’s proposal for injunctions requiring ISPs to block access to offshore websites that infringe copyright.
The High Court has allowed special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision in AstraZeneca v Apotex (“Rosuvastatin”).
The Full Court has clarified what the prior use must disclose for it to be novelty destroying under the Patents Act 1990
Beach J accepted that springboard injunctions are available for patent infringement, but refused the grant on the facts.