Monthly Archive for: ‘October, 2011’
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on Friday upheld a claim by Alphapharm (together with Sigma and Generic Health) that claims 1 to 17 and 27 of Wyeth’s patent relating to venlafaxine, an anti-depressant used in the treatment of depression, are invalid.
Mallesons acted for Alphapharm in the proceeding.
On 26 October 2011, the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia (IPRIA) and the Centre for Media and Communications Law (CMCL) hosted a free seminar at the Melbourne Business School titled ‘Brands and the Challenges of Grey Markets’. The panellists were, by a surprising majority, in support of parallel imports…is this the way of the future
A 2009 inquiry into the European pharmaceutical sector identified competition between ‘originator’ and ‘generic’ companies as an area where pharmaceutical markets “are not working as well as they should”. The inquiry was particularly concerned about originator pharmaceutical companies launching pre-emptive litigation against potential generic competitors, and subsequent settlement agreements in which would-be generic competitors would be paid to delay entry to the market.
Copyright or copy-wrong? US Supreme Court hears arguments in a case concerning the shrinking public domain
On 5 October 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Golan, et al., v. Holder, et al. (docket no.
Last Friday, the Senate passed the National Business Names Registration Package to replace the existing state-based business name registration system with a national online register. While the registration of trade marks is still separate, and will continue to take place through IP Australia, there will be links to IP Australia in the registration process and entities will be prohibited from registering names that are “identical”, “nearly identical”, “undesirable”, or “restricted”. If you wondered whether naming your new-born child was challenging, have a think about what the process below means for your business
Our fearless leader Natalie Hickey has written an op-ed piece on the ongoing dispute between Matt Blatt and Herman Miller over Matt Blatt’s sale of replica Eames furniture. The piece appeared in the Age this morning, and is already generating a fair amount of comment on The Age and SMH websites.
European Court of Justice says no to patents requiring the destruction of a human embryo – an Australian perspective
Article 6(2)(c) of the European Biotech Directive excludes inventions which use human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes from patentability. Interpreting this exclusion, the European Court of Justice decided yesterday that an invention is not patentable if the claimed process requires the destruction of a ‘human embryo’.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General gave a keynote speech last Friday at the biennial Copyright Law & Practice Symposium. The text of the speech is available online, and as you would expect the A-G took the opportunity to make some copyright-related announcements. The two key “new” announcements in the speech were:
A number of groups have sought leave to intervene or be heard as amicus curiae in the High Court appeal from Full Federal Court’s decision in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNet Limited  FCAFC 23.