Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 AUGUST 2017

Court decision highlights difficulty in challenging innovation patents

Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Explore more from Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

This illustrates how innovation patent proceedings can turn on narrow issues of construction and technical distinctions.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Helen Macpherson
Helen Macpherson
Author LinkedIn connections

Late last month, Justice Burley handed down his decision in Doric Products Pty Ltd v Asia Pacific Trading (Aust) Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 849. The decision provides a useful illustration of how Australian Courts will approach construction, infringement and validity issues in innovation patent proceedings, and emphasises the difficulties respondents face when challenging the validity of innovation patents.

The patentee, Doric Products Limited (Doric), commenced proceedings against Asia Pacific Trading (Aust) Pty Ltd (APT), alleging that APT had infringed the claims of its innovation patents 2012100818 (818 Patent) and 2012100260 (260 Patent), by importing, selling and offering to sell a window winder called the "APT Product." APT cross-claimed, alleging that the asserted claims of both patents were invalid on grounds of lack of novelty and innovative step.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Controlled Foreign Company rules - UK:

In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.(CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia