Patents – invalidity, threatened infringement, relief
Category: IP and Trade Practices
Abuse of process – consecutive actions for infringement of divisional innovation patents
Trade marks – application for judicial review of decision of Registrar to extend time for filing notice of intention to oppose application for removal of two trade marks – “circumstances beyond control of the person”
Trade marks – appeal from decision of Registrar to reject application on ground of lack of distinctiveness
Red Energy Pty Ltd, an energy retailer in the National Electricity Market, applied for registration of the trade mark EVENPAY.
Trade marks – misleading or deceptive conduct – interlocutory injunction – user of “SPORTSBET” seeks restraint on use of “SPORTINGBET” – characteristics of online betting market – admissibility of focus group report – prima facie case – previous co-existence of rival names – balance of convenience – need to find new name
Patents – infringement and validity – safety system used for the detection of obstructions in the path of a moving part of machinery, such as press brakes
Patents – method for identifying traits from genetic make-up of cows – manner of manufacture, inventive step, sufficiency, novelty, fair basis, clarity, definition and utility.
Patents – pharmaceutical products – paracetamol tablets – erroneous description of testing apparatus –whether claims should be construed so as to avoid the error – level of detail required in describing ingredients in pharmaceutical formulations – relevance of manufacturing and processing information in marketing authorisation application
Patents – novelty – whether language in claim described the function of integers for a locking mechanism or also specified position – utility – “promise” of the invention – “composite” promises – specification refers to multiple advantages conveyed by the invention – whether promises to be interpreted cumulatively or disjunctively
Copyright – Infringement – Innocent infringement – Damages
Patents – infringement – claim construction – validity – novelty – obviousness – misleading or deceptive conduct – unjustified threats – costs
Trade marks – misleading or deceptive conduct – passing off – whether separate reputation in mark – differences in get up – unjustified threats – delay in bringing infringement action – whether claimant acted with due diligence
Patents – complete specification – best method – “performing the invention” – whether feature omitted from specific part of the best method known to the applicant for performing the invention
The Full Court of the Federal Court recently clarified the way in which the “side by side comparison” of trade marks is to be carried out in order to determine whether the two marks are substantially identical.
The clarification occurred in the context of an opposition to the registration of a trade mark pursuant to s 58 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA). However, the Full Court’s clarification will have broader relevance as the question of whether a mark is substantially identical to another arises in several other sections of the TMA (for example sections 44, 120 and 122).