Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 SEPTEMBER 2021

The Importance Of Recognising Multiple Priorities In A Single Claim

Davies Collison Cave
Explore more from Davies Collison Cave

Michael Caine, a Principal of Davies Collison Cave Pty Ltd, has spent many years studying various aspects of Article 4 of the Paris Convention, either as convenor of the IPTA, ...

GlobalIntellectual Property
Michael Caine
Michael Caine
Author LinkedIn connections

Michael Caine, a Principal of Davies Collison Cave Pty Ltd, has spent many years studying various aspects of Article 4 of the Paris Convention, either as convenor of the International Patents Committee of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia (IPTA), or in carrying out roles he has held within the (International Patents) Study & Work Commission (CET) of the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI), where he currently serves as Vice President of the CET. Michael's paper on Article 4C(4) of the Paris Convention entitled "When is it safe to refile or update a priority application?" and a report of a study he carried out within FICPI in relation to Article 4A(1) entitled "Guidelines for Transferring Priority Rights" have been widely consulted.

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

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers