Further Evidence in Australian Patent Office Proceedings: Merial Ltd v Eli Lilly and Company [2-12] APO 69


This is an interesting Australian Patent Office decision insofar as it reveals the deliberations of the

Office in deciding whether to allow a party to patent opposition proceedings to serve further

evidence on another. In what was admittedly a ‘line ball’ decision, it becomes clear how critical it is

for there to be a clear explanation of the significance of evidence, particularly in circumstances

where there is seen to be delay in preparation and service of further evidence.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Freehills Patent Attorneys | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.