IP Update March 2014 Issue 23

IP Update March 2014 Issue 23

IP Update March 2014 Issue 23

Be careful what you say and do – or don’t do, as the case may be.  Our Case Study on the TiVo contempt proceedings shows confusion and forgetfulness are not excuses for disobeying a court order.  The Chemist Warehouse case illustrates how failure to comply with an advertising code may be a criminal offence.

What is patentable is a question exercising the highest courts.  Our analysis of the Apotex case explains the Australian High Court’s ruling that methods of medical treatment are patentable.  Our Practice Update reports on the latest computer-implemented invention case before the US Supreme Court.

We explore two new avenues for speedy acquisition and enforcement of rights.  Australian patent applicants can now request fast-track examination of applications already examined in another Global Patent Prosecution Highway country.  Trade mark owners can request suspension of anabusive domain name registration under the new Uniform Rapid Suspension mechanism.

Our Insight considers the calibre of Australia’s IP and innovation system relative to other Asian countries.

In this issue

Insight

Insight: The IP/Innovation Olympics

Case Studies

Practice Updates

DCC Update

DCC News

DCC Out and About