The recent Full Federal Court decision in Zoetis Services LLC v Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc [2024] FCAFC 145 has highlighted fundamental flaws in the Australian patent law’s ‘best method’ requirement. While the court’s application of existing principles appears sound, the resulting analysis reveals that the requirement is not only arbitrary in its operation,
Hindsight by Stealth? Pre-RtB ‘Ascertainment’ After Sandoz v Bayer
A recent Full Court decision suggests that demonstrating prior art could be ‘reasonably expected to be ascertained’ under the pre-Raising the Bar (RtB) law may be considerably easier than previously thought. But has the pendulum swung too far? In relaxing the evidentiary requirements for establishing that prior art information would have been found by the…
Full Court Delivers Hot N Cold Comfort in Katy Perry Trade Mark Battle
While this blog normally focuses on patent matters, occasionally a case comes along that warrants stepping outside my usual lane. The Full Court of the Federal Court’s decision in Killer Queen LLC v Taylor [2024] FCAFC 149, delivered last week, is one such case. After all, it’s not every day that an Australian small…
Here We Go Again? Aristocrat Eyes High Court After Grant of Leave to Appeal
A single judge of the Federal Court of Australia, Justice O’Bryan, has granted Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (‘Aristocrat’) leave to appeal a decision issued back in March this year. In that decision, Justice Burley found that all remaining claims in a group of innovation patents relating to computer-implemented electronic gaming machine (EGM) technology did…
Have Australia’s ‘Raising the Bar’ Law Reforms Suppressed Patent Oppositions?
Australia has a pre-grant patent opposition system. That is to say, once an application has passed examination and been accepted for potential grant as a patent, there is a period (of three months) during which anybody may oppose the grant. The subsequent opposition proceedings – if they run their full course – consist of a…
Large vs Small, Group Ownership vs Independent – What Factors Influenced Firms’ Patent Filing Share in 2023?
As I recently reported, Australian patent filings in 2023 fell slightly, by 2.4%, over the previous year. This implies, of course, that patent attorneys filing applications on behalf of domestic and foreign clients should, overall, also have experienced a similar decline new filings. But, of course, individual firms fared differently in the competition for…
LG Again Tops Australian Patent Filings in 2023, as Most of the ‘Usual Suspects’ Return
Over the past five years (i.e. since 2019) Korea’s LG Electronics Inc and China’s Huawei Technologies Ltd have consistently placed in the top five applicants for Australian patents. Indeed, for the past four years they were in the leading three. In 2021, Huawei came out on top with LG a close second. In 2022,…
Patent Filings in Australia Fell Again in 2023, but Applications from China are Bucking the Trend
In 2023 the total number of standard patent applications filed in Australia remained above 30,000 for the third year running, despite a 2.4% drop in filings. This follows a decline of nearly 0.5% in the previous year. However, whereas the decline in new applications in 2022 was due to fewer filings by Australian residents (with…
The Major Australian Client at the Centre of David and Goliath Legal Battle Between Patent Attorney Firms
As some readers may be aware (I have previously mentioned it only in passing) a firm in the IPH Limited (ASX:IPH) group – the market cap of which is A$1.56B at publication – is once again taking legal action against a recently-established firm and its founders, all of whom are former…
Disciplinary Decision Against Registered Attorney a Reminder of the Importance of Clear Communication and Record Keeping
Back in July, the Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Disciplinary Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) issued a decision in relation to a complaint about a registered attorney (‘the attorney’) by a client (‘the client’) in response to which the Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Board (TTIPAB, a.k.a. ‘the Board’) commenced disciplinary proceedings, bringing nine charges against the attorney. The full decision…