IPwars.com

Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

Apple and that ITC ban

Well written piece in The New Yorker outlining the role of the US International Trade Commission in patent disputes and President Obama’s veto of the ITC’s order to block imports of “older” Apple products. Mind you, make sure you are not eating your cornflakes over breakfast or sipping your decaf skinny latte when you get to the paragraph: Samsung’s lawyers may take their talents to Seoul, Tokyo, London, or other venues in which home-court.. Read More

Compulsory licensing of patents

The Assistant Treasurer has referred the operation of the compulsory licence regime within the Patents Act 1990 to the Productivity Commission for review. At present, sections 133 to 140 of the Patents Act provide for applications to be made to the Federal Court for a compulsory licence to work a patent where (i) the applicant has tried for a reasonable period, but without success, to obtain from the patentee an authorisation to work.. Read More

Apple and Samsung in the High Court 3

As is well known by now, the High Court dismissed Apple’s application for special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s dissolution of the interlocutory injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. This means that Samsung can legitimately offer the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for sale in Australia pending trial and subject to an undertaking to keep full accounts. The transcript of the High Court hearing (French CJ, Gummow and Bell JJ) is.. Read More

Apple v Samsung in the High Court 2

Apple’s application for special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision to discharge the interlocutory injunction granted by Bennett J will be heard on Friday, 9 December 2011 in Sydney. In granting the stay on the Full Federal Court’s orders, Heydon J pointed out that the fact that 2 experienced patent judges had reached opposition conclusions, in circumstances which his Honour characterised as the appeal court not disturbing Bennett J’s findings.. Read More

Apple and Samsung in the High Court

The High Court has extended the stay on the Full Federal Court’s dissolution of the injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 for another 7 days.

Samsung gets Oz injunction discharged

The Full Federal Court (Dowsett, Foster and Yates JJ) has allowed Samsung’s appeal from Bennett J’s decision and discharged the interlocutory injunctions against the Galaxy Tab 10.1. On a first read, it looks like a “close run” thing. It also appears the grant of (interlocutory) injunctions for patent infringement in Australia may well be increasingly influenced in the future by the sorts of issues highlighted by the US Supreme Court in KSR v.. Read More

Smartphone patent landscape

Dr Mark Summerfield has an interesting post demonstrating some work he and his colleagues have been doing modelling the ownership of patents in the smartphone space. In their mobile technology landscape, or themescape, they seek to demonstrate pictorially: Samsung appears to own key hardware patents; Microsoft seems to own most software patents; but Apple seems to have highly strategic patents. The themescape also seeks to demonstrate that Google was a long way behind,.. Read More

Apple v Samsung

Belated link to Bennett J’s reasons for granting the interlocutory injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab: Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited [2011] FCA 1164 It has now been reported that Samsung has appealed, with Gerry Harvey in support. Samsung is also reported to be bringing claims of patent infringement against Australia and Japan, although the patents it is asserting in Australia are apparently counterparts to the ‘frand’ patents which a Dutch court.. Read More

Apple gets interlocutory injunction against Samsung

Apple gets over the first hurdle.

Apple v Samsung DownUnder

At (Foss Patents‘) last count, the war between Apple and Samsung now ranges across 4 continents and 11 different courts in 9 countries. (For the start of the war, start here.) As of yesterday, one of those countries is Australia where, on Apple’s application for an interlocutory injunction, in return for an undertaking as to damages Samsung gave undertakings: Until the determination of this proceeding or further order of the Court, the respondents.. Read More