Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Innovation patent consultation on the consultation

IP Australia issues consultation paper on ACIP’s report into the innovation patent system

ACIP on innovation patents

ACIP’s final report into Innovation Patents has been published.

Innovation patents – further chance to protest

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

ACIP reviews innovation patents

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

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 the first round of Lockwood. Wonder how that will hold up for future application under.. Read More

What’s the priority date for a divisional patent?

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