Australia – Page 3 – IP Law Watch

Keep an Eye on Your Mailbox – Appoint a UK Representative for Trade Marks Filed Through WIPO

Oct 05 2022

A direct United Kingdom (UK) trade mark application to the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) contains a requirement to name a UK address for service. In contrast, it has been a standing practice of the UKIPO to process International Trade Mark Registrations via the Madrid Protocol designating the UK without requiring a UK service address. The UKIPO would only require to specify a UK service address in circumstances where objections or oppositions are raised in relation to the International Trade Mark Registrations during prosecution. However, the recent decision in MARCO POLO (O/681/22) has called this UKIPO’s practice into question.

High Court Split 3-3 in Landmark Decision on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia

Aug 22 2022

The High Court has issued its eagerly awaited decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat). Six High Court Justices presided over the appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia (Full Court Decision), which we wrote about in November 2021. The High Court was split 3-3, meaning the appeal was dismissed and Aristocrat’s patent application will not proceed to grant.

The split decision leaves the question of the patentability of computer implemented inventions (CIIs) somewhat unresolved in Australia.

Developers Denied Double Dipping Damages

Jul 12 2022

The rule against double recovery, which operates to ensure plaintiffs are not compensated twice in respect of the same loss, is well-known and generally arises for judicial consideration where there are joint and several tortfeasors. The recent decision of Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116 by Judge Long SC of the District Court of Queensland considered the rule against double recovery in the context of separate proceedings against different defendants. This case confirms that where damages for copyright infringement are compensatory, the fact that a plaintiff has already received an amount of damages from one infringer will serve to reduce the damages payable by the other.

Latvian Citizen Fined US$4.5 Million and Sentenced to More than 4 Years of Imprisonment for Fraudulent Trade Mark Renewal Scheme

Jul 04 2022

Misleading renewal notices to trademark owners continue to cause confusion and, in some cases, unnecessary fees paid to fraudulent schemers that do not result in renewal of a trademark registration. Recently, a Latvian citizen was sentenced to more than four years in U.S. prison and fined over US$4.5 million in restitution, after he pleaded guilty to a three-year scheme that defrauded thousands of U.S. trademark owners of over US$1.2 million.

The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)

Jun 30 2022

In a recent alert, we painted the big NFT picture, highlighting what a non-fungible token (NFT) means and the opportunities they present (see here). In this second part of the NFT series, we will take a deeper look at local regulatory control (or lack thereof) in this uncharted territory.

Indirect Patent Infringement Down Under

Jun 07 2022

The issue of contributory infringement of a patent under the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) does not often arise for consideration by the Australian judicial system. When it does arise, the question of whether or not the product supplied is a ‘staple commercial product’ under the relevant provisions of the Act is always of particular interest.

In only a few cases has the impugned product been held to be a staple commercial product, and so any case that expands upon that product class is a particularly valuable aid. It is therefore of interest that the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court has recently considered contributory infringement in Hood v Down Under Enterprises International Pty Limited [2022] FCAFC 69.

Diving Deeper Into the Amendments to the Australian Designs Act: Tips, Tricks and Risks (Part 2)

May 27 2022

In part 1 of this series (here), we considered the welcome introduction of a 12 month grace period that came into effect as of 10 March 2022. The grace period protects a design owner against inadvertent disclosure of a design before an application for protection of the design is filed – previously, this was fatal to having enforceable design rights. In part 2, we delve into the prior use infringement exemption that concurrently came into effect to mitigate the commercial risks that might arise as a result of the grace period.

Australia Re-Aligned With Major Jurisdictions for AI-Based Inventorship

Apr 22 2022

In July 2021, Australia was thrust into the spotlight as a favourable country to patent AI-created inventions as a result of the Australian Federal Court’s decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 – see our previous coverage here.

At first instance, the Court construed “inventor” as including “a person or thing that invents”.¹ The decision was an appeal from a Patent Office hearing where the Office rejected a patent application in the name of Stephen L. Thaler as the creator of the “inventor”, AI system (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS)). As DABUS had autonomously generated the invention, for the purposes of the patent application Dr Thaler derived title to the invention from DABUS.

Diving Deeper Into the Amendments to the Australian Designs Act: Tips, Tricks and Risks (Part 1)

Mar 25 2022

Protecting the visual appearance of a product, or its packaging, should be a key consideration in any comprehensive IP protection strategy. We have previously written about amendments to the Australian Designs Act 2003 (Cth) (here and here). All changes to the Designs Act have now come into force as of 10 March 2022. In this first of a series of articles, we delve deeper into amendments that introduce the long awaited grace period.

F45 Cops a Punch in Further Australian Decision on Patents for Computer Implemented Inventions

Feb 18 2022

The scorecard against computer implemented inventions being patentable in Australia took another hit this week when the Federal Court revoked two innovation patents from global fitness giant, F45 in F45 Training Pty Ltd v Body Fit Training Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 96. Justice Nicholas of the Federal Court held that F45’s innovation patents, which involved a computer implemented system for configuring and operating one or more fitness studios, were invalid and even if they were valid, rival fitness franchise Body Fit Training did not infringe them.

Tag:Australia