When Justice Jagot handed down her judgment in Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) in August this year (read our Alert here, her Honour found that Apotex’s proposed supply of a generic leflunomide product would infringe Sanofi’s patent. Her Honour also found that Apotex had infringed the copyright in Sanofi’s leflunomide product information (“PI”). Unable to agree on final orders and the effect of the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Copyright) Act 2011 (the “Amendment Act”), Justice Jagot was called in to adjudicate. Her Honour’s decision, handed down on 18 November, is a useful bedtime read for anyone interested in the effect of the Amendment Act. read more »
Partner:
The highly anticipated High Court hearing of the iiNet v Roadshow Films appeal will begin next Thursday 1 December. In a move that may devastate many technology and IP nerds who have been following the case, the High Court has requested that mobile phone and other electronic devices not be taken into the courtroom. The implication? No live twitter/facebook/blogging from the hearing. read more »
On 13 July, the alleged copyright infringement against Viacom for stealing the YouTube video “What What (In the Butt)” was dismissed, with a United States federal judge affirming the “fair use” justification. In November 2010, Brownmark Films (the producer of the video) sued Viacom and Comedy Central for copyright infringement over a South Park episode (the 171st episode to be exact) entitled “Canada on Strike” which aired in 2008. read more »
After 3 years of litigation, on 29 June, a U.S. Federal Court judge has ruled that the notorious U.S. bikie gang, the Mongols Motorcycle Club, can keep their name and logo. The two registered trademarks of the club are the “verbal mark” which is the word Mongols, and the “visual mark” which is the logo. The club’s trade marked logo depicts a man with a ponytail riding a chopper (that’s a motorcycle to us bike unenthusiasts) which is synonymous with the persona of the club. read more »
Faster than a negotiated agreement! More powerful than other injunctions! Able to constrain publishing freedoms in a single order! Is the super-injunction the latest weapon in a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the celebrity way? “CTB” was obviously hoping so... read more »
US pop star Kesha (singer of the song titled “Tik Tok”) has taken action against Wimo Labs over their “Tik Tok” labelled iPod wriststrap in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. However, she probably didn’t expect to be “wound up” in a declaratory judgment hearing. We discuss some of the risks and benefits of using declaratory relief to protect IP rights. This case also provides an opportunity to comment on the relationship between celebrity pop culture and IP rights. read more »
If, like the IP Whiteboard team, you’re an avid reader of Patents Office decisions, then you may have noticed an increase in decisions where divisional applications have been refused by the Commissioner (we count 19 such decisions in the past 4 months!). Keep reading to find out why... read more »
The Victorian Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a claim for breach of confidence brought against Incitec Pivot by former leasing consultants, MMFC. In striking out the plaintiff's claim, which was commenced in July 2008, Justice Croft found that MMFC had failed to identify or define information capable of protection as confidential information. read more »
The NSW Supreme Court recently considered the extent to which matters concerning patents are arbitrable. In Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited, Justice Hammerschlag held that there was no impediment to the parties agreeing that the particular dispute in question, relating to the rights in and entitlement to a patent application or invention, was to be resolved by way of read more »
The borderless nature of the internet was instructive in a recent copyright case in the US. read more »