IP Update June 2013 Issue 20
Australia and NZ are moving closer together, as this edition’s Insight explains.
Our Case Studies look at when prior art provides “clear and unmistakeable directions” that anticipate a claim (Eli Lilly), and when a licence will be granted to protect a party who exploits a restored patent during its lapsed period (Garden City).
We also explore the Snack Foods denial of interlocutory relief for trade mark infringement, the US Alkamai decision strengthening patent infringement by inducement, and the Research Affiliates ruling that implementing by computer an algorithmic process that can be undertaken manually is not a patentable invention.
Following its recent High Court win, Google no longer restricts advertisers from using other parties’ trademarks as keywords. Our Practice Update considers what actions trade mark owners can take against the advertisers, and why the revised customs seizure provisions are good news for trade mark and copyright owners.
In this issue
- Significant policy change to Google’s trade mark Adwords in Australia
- What’s in a name? Eli Lilly’s olanzapine patent deemed valid on all grounds
Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Apotex Pty Ltd  FCA 214
- Federal Court: Snack Foods’ interlocutory injunction application unsucc essful in trade mark infringement case
Snack Foods Limited v Premier 1st Pty Ltd  FCA 135
- Application for a licence to exploit a patented invention refused
Garden City Planters Pty Ltd v Vivre Veritas Pty Ltd  APO 113
- Software patents in Australia: court prefers curves to asset index
Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents  FCA 71
- Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 Introduced to Parliament
- Trade mark and copy right owners benefit under new Australian Customs seizure procedures