Sanofi v Apotex – infringement

Sanofi v Apotex – infringement: The High Court overturned the rulings that Apotex infringed Sanofi’s patent for the treatment of psoriasis by supplying for treatment of RA and PsA.

The power of a registered trade mark

If you have tried to buy, sell or rent property in Australia in the last 10 years (at the least!), like some nearly 7 million other Australians you have no doubt come across realestate.com.au, the web-portal run by REA Group. Real One also competes in that space.[1] Bromberg J has held that Real One’s logos: […]

A designs case!

Jacobson J has found that Bluescope’s “Smartascreen” metal fencing panel infringed Gram Engineering’s Registered Design No. AU 121344 for a fencing panel as an obvious imitation. Perhaps the most interesting finding, however, is why the Smartascreen was not a fraudulent imitation. vs Gram’s design was registered in 1994, so this is an “old Act” case […]

Property in the proceeds of infringement

In a decision which no doubt has some further distance to run, Newey J (sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court in England) has ruled that the owner of copyright does not have a proprietary interest in the proceeds (read profits) made by an infringer of the copyright. Harris et al. are alleged […]

Apotex v Sanofi

The Full Court (Keane CJ, Bennett and Yates JJ) has unanimously dismissed Apotex’ appeal from Jagot J findings that it had infringed Sanofi-Aventis’ patents and copyright. Bennett and Yates JJ delivered a joint opinion, Keane CJ his Honour’s own reasoned opinion. Patent Sanofi’s patent had just one claim: A method of preventing or treating a […]

Trade marks and survey evidence in Australia

Adidas is suing Pacific Brands, alleging that the latter’s use of 3 stripes on footwear infringes Adidas’ registered trade marks for the “3 Stripes” (the judgment doesn’t identify which trade marks or the Pacific Brands’ product(s) in question). Adidas gave notice under CM-13 (this is .doc download link, but the terms of the practice note are […]

Scope of disclosure in an innovation patent

Patentology has a nice summary of the innovation patentee’s successful appeal in Seafood Innovations Pty Ltd v Richard Bass Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 83. One point: it seems like the disclosure in the body of the specification supporting the broadest claim was at a level of generality similar to that upheld by the High Court in […]

A lamp lens too far

The fifth decision under the “new” Designs Act 2004 illustrates the operation of that old principle: in a crowded field, small differences may be enough to confer validity, but equally small differences in the accused products will be sufficient to avoid liability. You will recall that LED Technologies successfully sued Elecspess (and others) for infringing […]

DGTEK v Digiteck II

For DGTEK v Digiteck I, see here. Non-use Lander J considered that the goods covered by Hills’ registration should be limited as a result of non-use for the statutory period of 3 continuous years under s 92. One interesting point on this part of the case is that Bitek had sought removal of all goods […]