How to Handle Roadblocks with an Australian Patent Examiner
Apple Inc. [2024] APO 25 (25 June 2024)
Amazentis SA [2024] APO 27 (28 June 2024)
![How to Handle Roadblocks with an Australian Patent Examiner](https://www.pearceip.law/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Pearce-IP-Blog-How-to-Handle-Roadblocks-with-an-Australian-Patent-Examiner-1080x627.png.webp)
Home / News / Pearce IP Blog
How to Handle Roadblocks with an Australian Patent Examiner
Apple Inc. [2024] APO 25 (25 June 2024)
Amazentis SA [2024] APO 27 (28 June 2024)
Elanco Australasia Pty Ltd v Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 640
How claim types and form will influence enforcement strategies
CQMS Triumphs in Patent Opposition Against ESCO Group
CQMS Triumphs in Patent Opposition Against ESCO Group
R F Industries Pty Ltd v Mine Site Technologies Pty Ltd [2024] APO 16 provides a good example of the usefulness of re-examination and opposition to challenge a granted patent.
On 8 March 2024, Justice Burley of the Federal Court issued the latest in a series of decisions relating to the patent-eligibility of Aristocrat’s electronic gaming machine (EGM) patents. Unfortunately it does not resolve the legal uncertainty created by the High Court’s split decision on the matter in 2022. What next?
On 16 February 2024, IP Australia published that Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (Ono) was granted a patent term extension (PTE) in respect of its Australian Patent No. 2011203119 (Patent). This is the quiet conclusion to Ono’s dispute with the Patent Office relating to OPTIVO® (nivolumab) which culminated in an appeal court decision rejecting its previous application for PTE.
The Federal Court’s second patent decision of 2024 is a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court relating to one of several long-running patent disputes in the field of carpark overstay detection. In March 2023, Justice Besanko upheld the validity of two patents owned by Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd (VMS), both entitled ‘Method, apparatus and system for parking overstay detection’.
In the first Federal Court patent decision handed down in 2024, MSA 4×4 Accessories Pty Ltd failed to establish infringement by Clearview Towing Mirrors Pty Ltd of MSA’s patent to a mountable storage device, commonly used in off-road and trade vehicles.
Zoetis Services LLC opposed two Australian patent applications (one standard and one innovation patent application) in the name of Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH. The applications claim a method of treating heart failure due to asymptomatic myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) in a patient (including a dog) by administering pimobendan (also known as Vetmedin®).
Pearce IP is very pleased to welcome Associate, Patent Attorney (US) Carol Johns PhD to our team. Carol is based in...
On 9 August 2023, the Registrar of Trade Marks handed down a decision in favour of Nova Pharmaceuticals Australasia...
In this patent infringement/validity dispute, Hanwha failed to establish that REC infringed its “old Act” Australian patent No 2008323025, and its dependant ACL claims were dismissed.
An Australian Court has found in favour of Globaltech which solved a mining problem with an elegant solution. An important lesson from this decision is that driving IP innovation can be central to maintaining a market-leading position.
In this patent infringement/validity dispute, Hanwha failed to establish that REC infringed its “old Act” Australian patent No 2008323025, and its dependant ACL claims were dismissed.