Product Management Group (PMG) has lost its appeal from Middleton J’s finding that it infringed Blue Gentian’s innovation patents for a self extending/collapsing garden hose. The appeal seems like a fairly straightforward application of construction principles and demonstrates, yet again, how slender an innovation need be to secure a monopoly for eight years. There may, however, be a question for the future whether or not the “substantial contribution” to the.. Read More
IP Australia issues consultation paper on ACIP’s report into the innovation patent system
ACIP’s final report into Innovation Patents has been published.
IP Australia is seeking comments on how the innovation patent system is working. Since 2001, Australia grants 2 types of patent: the standard patent with a normal term of 20 years and an innovation patent with a term up to 8 years. Ann innovation patent need show only an innovative step over the prior art to be valid. According to the Full Court in Delnorth, this requires a difference that.. Read More
On 28 February, the Minister directed ACIP to report on the innovation patent system. On 17 August, ACIP published an issues paper (pdf) and now seeks your comments by 14 October 2011. According to the announcement of the issue paper’s release: In recent years a variety of concerns have been raised about the innovation patent system and whether it is meeting its original objectives. A key concern is that an innovation.. Read More
Patentology has a nice summary of the innovation patentee’s successful appeal in Seafood Innovations Pty Ltd v Richard Bass Pty Ltd  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 the first round of Lockwood. Wonder how that will hold up for future application under.. Read More
Mont has an innovation patent for a travel pack. It sued Phoenix for infringing the innovation patent; Phoenix counter-claimed for invalidity on the grounds of Mont’s own use commencing in October 2004. Patents Act 1990 s 24 (read with Reg. 2.2(1A)) provides a patentee with a grace period: protecting the patentee against attacks on grounds of lack of novelty or inventive step/innovative step by reason of the patentee’s own authorised.. Read More