Read our latest updates & insights

Australian Federal Court Moves Fast in Forxiga® Injunction Case. Justice Downes of the Federal Court of Australia is setting new records for timeliness in a pharmaceutical patent case.  Following the hearing last Friday (6 February 2026), just over 7 weeks from AstraZeneca’s application for interlocutory injunction…

This decision highlights the difference between disclosure under patent law and disclosure of confidential information and confirms that, just because an invention has been made “publicly available”, this does not mean that the invention has lost its confidential nature.

Seqirus has successfully opposed Moderna’s: AU2015249553 patent application (AU553) for nucleic acid vaccines; and AU2017326423 (AU423) for high purity RNA compositions and methods for preparation of these compositions.

On 30 January 2026, two industry organisations – the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia (IPTA) and Medicines Australia (MA) – filed applications with the High Court of Australia to intervene as amici curiae in Otsuka’s application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Federal Court finding that pharmaceutical formulations are not eligible for a patent term extension (PTE).

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by New Zealand toy manufacturer, Zuru, holding that it was not trade mark infringement for Zuru to use the phrase “LEGO® BRICK COMPATIBLE” on the packaging of its plastic bricks. It also upheld the lower court’s decision that this conduct was not likely to mislead or deceive contrary to the Fair Trading Act 1986, nor did it amount to the tort of passing off.

Samsung Bioepis has successfully opposed Janssen Biotech’s AU2019346134 patent application for methods of treating ulcerative colitis with ustekinumab (Stelara®). Samsung invalidated all of the AU134 claims on the grounds of lack of novelty and obviousness.

IP Australia has dismissed Adama Agan Ltd’s (Adama) opposition to the grant of Kumiai Chemical Industry Co., Ltd’s (Kumiai) Australian patent application directed to an industrial process for producing the herbicide pyroxasulfone, with Kumiai’s patent application proceeding to grant in early January 2026.

Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia has granted an appeal by CSIRO overturning the APO decision that CSIRO’s patent application number AU 2017292900 (the Application) was invalid due to lack of support.

In Southern Cross Industrial Group Pty Ltd v Mickala Mining Maintenance Pty Ltd (Liability Trial) [2025] FCA 1363, Justice Downes of the Federal Court found an innovation patent for LED lighting towers invalid for lack of novelty and innovative step.

Justice Jackman of the Federal Court has handed down judgment in proceedings between Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd. (Abbey) and Virbac Australia Pty Ltd (Virbac), in a dispute concerning Virbac’s patent for a veterinary topical pour-on formulation for cattle containing macrocyclic lactone and levamisole.

The Australian Patent Office (APO) upheld an opposition by Nuseed Pty Ltd and Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans Georg Lembke KG against Limagrain Europe’s Australian patent application number 2016307234 (the Application) relating to Brassica…

The Australian Patent Office (APO) upheld an opposition by Urrbrae Foods Pty Ltd against CSIRO’s patent application number AU2017292900 (the Application) directed to high amylose wheat.  While grounds of manner of manufacture and entitlement…

Seqirus, Inc. opposed Translate Bio, Inc.’s patent application (AU2020202755) concerning the in vivo delivery of mRNA for augmenting proteins and enzymes in genetic diseases. The invention’s contribution lay in specific liposome-forming lipid…

This decision concerns the apportionment of costs arising from the substantive decision in Miele & Cie KG v Bruckbauer [2025] FCA 537 (27 May 2025) (Substantive Decision). Justice Rofe considered the appropriate apportionment of costs…

Justice Jackman has confirmed that, in the context of a preliminary discovery application, where a prospective applicant vacates a hearing date and the prospective respondent has incurred costs in preparing for the vacated hearing…