Freehills Patent Attorneys

101 Collins Street
Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia

Contact: Tom Gumley

  • 61-3-9288-1479

Shaken, but still unstirred - Report recommends amendments to the Australian innovation patent system

The final report on the review of the innovation patent system by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) has been published . ACIP was unable to recommend retention or abolition of the innovation patent system…more
| Intellectual Property

Alice v CLS Bank: An Australian Perspective

Over the decades, the use of patents to protect “software” or “computer implemented” inventions has been the subject of much debate: both on the philosophical question of whether such inventions should be patentable, and on the…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade, Science, Computers, & Technology

Bowman v Monsanto in an Australian context

Most will be aware by now of the recent US Supreme Court decision, Bowman v Monsanto Co.,569 US (2013). One question that remains is what would have been the outcome if like facts had arisen in Australia and were considered…more
| Agriculture, Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

What Australian companies need to know about ‘patent oppositions’ in the US

Many Australian companies will be familiar with the pre-grant patent oppositions that are available under Australian law. Similarly, many Australian companies will be familiar with post-grant patent oppositions before the…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

Timely evidence needed for Australian Patent Oppositions

The Australian Patent Office is applying strict new requirements to obtain an extension of time to file evidence in an opposition proceeding. The effect of this change has been mitigated for some parties, as they have had the…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Markush claims under Australian patent practice

Markush claims are a common form of claim in the field of chemistry. Markush claims essentially claim a core molecular structure and cover a wide range of substituent groups that can be substituted on to that molecular…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

New Zealand Patent Oppositions – What Counts As Evidence In Reply?

I continue my series of articles on the topic of New Zealand Patent Oppositions. This article discusses the limited scope of evidence in reply and the pitfalls of exceeding that scope…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Amendments To Australia’s Intellectual Property Laws

On 19 March 2014, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 (Cth) (the Bill) was introduced into parliament. Most substantively, the Bill seeks to introduce a compulsory licensing scheme for pharmaceuticals and…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade, Science, Computers, & Technology

New Zealand Patent Oppositions – New And Improved (Old Act Cases)

In my earlier article, I looked at the various options for prospective opponents under the New Zealand Patents Act 2013 (the ‘New Act’). These options include third party assertions of prior art during examination, pre-grant…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

New Zealand Patent Oppositions – New And Improved (New Act Cases)

I continue my series of articles on the topic of New Zealand Patent Oppositions. My earlier articles as listed at the bottom of this article, describe the opposition regime under the existing legislation, the Patents Act 1953…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

New Zealand Patent Oppositions – Can I File Late Evidence?

I continue my series of articles on the topic of New Zealand Patent Oppositions. My earlier article NZ Patent Oppositions - What are the steps? describes the process for both the opponent and the applicant to submit their…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Distilling An Agreement

Sometimes, despite the best intentions, a business venture will fail. In such circumstances, agreements relating to the ownership of business property will be duly scrutinised, and perhaps, challenged in court…more
| Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property

Patentee Blindsided By Partially Uncorroborated Evidence

Evidence of what occurred over 15 years ago was ultimately accepted despite being only partially corroborated. As a result, many of the claims from Damorgold’s patent have been held invalid for lack of novelty based on that…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

‘Who’s That Walking On My Bridge?’: Navigating ‘Patent Troll’ Activity In The UK And Australia

While the activities of so-called ‘patent trolls’ have generated significant media and political attention in the USA, these activities are unlikely to become as prevalent in the UK and Australia because of distinct features of…more
| Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

Pharmaceutical Patent Injunction Refused: Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 241

Pfizer sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain Apotex from launching its pregabalin products for the treatment of seizures, claiming that the supply would constitute indirect infringement of Pfizer’s patent for treating…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Showing 1-15 of 146 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10
Areas of Practice
  • Intellectual Property
Locations
Other Countries
  • Australia
Number of Attorneys

25-50 Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.