The recent Federal Court of Australia decision of Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc v Zoetis Services LLC1 has (on one aspect) highlighted the ongoing attention given by the Federal Court of Australia upon the construction of the word “comprising” in the main claims of patents. The Court’s construction of the word “comprising” in the […]
Biotechnology Patent Update
The recent Australia Patent Office decision of Zoetis Services LLC v Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH [2024] APO 4 dated 8th February 2024 has (on one aspect) highlighted the challenge for clinical researchers and innovators when reporting interim clinical trial results by way of press releases. The Australian Patent Office held that the press release reporting […]
Extension of time
The recent Australia Patent Office decision in Bioverativ Therapeutics Inc. [2023] APO 64 highlights one aspect being, if a patent applicant wishes to seek an extension of time to file a divisional application under section 223(2) Patents Act 1990 (Cth), the applicant must satisfy the following grounds: (i) That the applicant must possess the requisite […]
Market-Size Damages
The High Court of Australia has granted special leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) 2023 FCAFC 97. The High Court of Australia indicated that questions concerning the legal rules for the assessment of damages flowing from an undertaking as to […]
Trade Marks Update
Whilst there were many aspects to this litigation, in the recent Federal Court of Australia decision of Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd[1], it was held that Lavazza Australia Pty Ltd (Lavazza) was successful in establishing that Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (Cantarella) was not the owner in Australia of “ORO” registered trade […]