IP Law Watch – Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP

USPTO Proposes Rule Changes to Refocus Inter Partes Review Proceedings

Oct 17 2025

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed significant changes to the rules governing Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These revisions aim to enhance fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes, while curbing duplicative and costly litigation. Notably, these changes do not apply to Post-Grant Review (proceedings that must be filed within nine months of the patent issue date).

Patent Victory? Here’s When You Decide Between Damages or an Account of Profits

Sep 29 2025

The Federal Court of Australia has clarified when a successful patentee must make an election for pecuniary relief in Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd (VMS) v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd (SARB) (No 13) [2025] FCA 1078.

All Eyes on EYLEA–Sandoz Defeats Preliminary Injunction

Sep 22 2025

The recent decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Sandoz shows how a strong noninfringement position can be powerful to resisting a preliminary injunction. The dismissal of the Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) and Bayer Australia Ltd and Bayer Consumer Care AG (together Bayer) parties’ application for interlocutory relief aligns with the recent trend away from granting preliminary (interlocutory) injunctions in pharmaceutical patent cases. While the trend has primarily arisen from the court’s recognition that the calculation of damages for a new market entrant is likely to be more difficult than that for the patentee, this was a, but not the main driving, factor in this case.

Sage Advice from the Federal Court: Stylisation of Collab Marks

Sep 19 2025

In Paige v Sage and Paige¹, the Federal Court considered the existence of brand collaborations in the fashion industry, colloquially known as “collabs”, in assessing the deceptive similarity of trade marks.

Keep Spinning: Aristocrat Finally Hits the Patent Jackpot

Sep 17 2025

The Full Federal Court recently issued a game changing decision in Aristocrat v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131, which has major implications for the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

Federal Circuit’s First Foray Into AIA-Derivation Proceedings

Sep 11 2025

The Federal Circuit recently issued its first review of a derivation proceeding, a rarely used proceeding provided for by the America Invents Act (AIA).

Busted! Melbourne International Film Festival Director Subject to Urgent Interlocutory Injunction Over Moral Rights

Aug 12 2025

On 6 August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) ordered that Projector Films Pty Ltd and director David Ngo (the Respondents) be stopped from promoting, causing to promote or authorising the Melbourne International Film Festival (the MIFF) to show the documentary titled “Never Get Busted!” unless the Applicant Stephen McCallum was attributed as “Principal Director.”

Karen Walker Has a Runaway Win Before the Trade Marks Office

Aug 11 2025

In a recent decision of the Australian Trade Marks Office, Karen Walker Limited successfully opposed the registration of the mark ‘Runaway the Label‘ for clothing, footwear and headgear (class 25) and online retail services (class 35). We focus here on Delegate’s findings on deceptive similarity under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

Let’s Make it a Date–Best Method and the Filing Date of the Earliest Complete Application

Aug 11 2025

In the recent decision of NOCO Company v. Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887¹, Moshinsky J has provided welcomed clarity around the relevant date by which the best method known to the applicant is to be identified for divisional patent applications. Namely, the relevant date is the date from which the term of the patent is calculated. This means that for divisional patent applications, it is the filing date of the earliest complete or PCT application, not the individual filing date of each divisional application. And thus, it is at the time of filing the PCT application that the best method known to the applicant needs to be included in the specification.

Life After Skykick: UKIPO Issued New Guidelines

Aug 06 2025

Following the Sky v. SkyKick judgement, issued in December 2024, the UKIPO has now issued a practice note providing applicants with guidance on drafting and filing trade mark applications in the UK. Sky v SkyKick highlighted that filing an application for unduly broad specifications of goods and services with no genuine intention to use the mark can constitute bad faith and applicants are now provided with the tools to avoid the most common pitfalls.