Henley Arch v Lucky Homes: innocent infringement and the damages calculations
The Full Court has accepted that an exclusive licensee can agree to acquire all its requirements of the licensed products from the patentee. A sub-licensee, however, is not an exclusive licensee.
According to the traditional view, recently applied by Rares J, there would be no infringement in Australia in the circumstances outlined.
The Full Court has dismissed Chemist Warehouse’s appeal from Middleton J’s ruling that the get up of Direct Chemist Outlet’s stores did not “pass off” on Chemist Warehouse’s get up
Nicholas J has ruled that by selling its Razor fan Martec has infringed Hunter Pacific’s registered design for a ceiling fan hub, ADR No. 340171.
In partly allowing Glaxo’s appeal, the Full Court (Allsop CJ, Yates and Robertson JJ) has ruled against an expansive interpretation of omnibus claims.
The Commerce Select committee of the NZ Parliament has recommended that NZ should continue with the proposed Single Application and Examination Processes for patent applications in both Australia and NZ. The committee, however, did support continuing with the single trans-Tasman patent attorney regime.
On 6 May 2016, the Government published its response to ACIP’s review of designs law. Who knew? ACIP came up with 23 recommendations. For the most part, the Government accepted ACIP’s recommendations.
Vickery J has struck out parts of a statement of claim for misuse of confidential information and ordered that the plaintiff’s solicitors and barristers who have had access to the information be barred from continuing to act in the proceeding.
Beach J has ruled that there is no warrant for interpreting “basket” in GSK’s patent to mean “cylinder”, with the consequence that the patent was neither infringed, nor invalid.