Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Logan J has ruled that documents prepared by a firm of trade mark attorneys in connection with a domain name arbitration are not covered by trade marks attorney privilege

Two points about exclusive licences of patents in Australia

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.

The patent was not infringed

According to the traditional view, recently applied by Rares J, there would be no infringement in Australia in the circumstances outlined.

Selected links,from last week

Selected links from last week

Selected links from last (couple of) weeks

A selection of the links I found interesting over the last couple of weeks

Selected links from last week

Here is a selection of links to IP-related matters I found interesting last week

Selected links from last week

In case you missed the: A selection of links I found interesting last week

Omnibus claims: substantially the same

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.

A cylinder by any other name (except basket)

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.