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.

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.

© FPA Patent Attorneys | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


FPA Patent Attorneys on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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. Or, sign up using your email address.