The Chief Justice of the Federal Court has issued a new Practice Note which applies to Federal Court proceedings under the Patents Act 1990. The Practice Note is to be applied flexibly to promote the efficient identification of issues and improve facilitation in the trial process. It commences on 1 July 2010. Click here for a copy. read more »
It's said that 10 per cent of art in the Australian market is fake (putting aside the more philosophical questions of whether there is such a thing as "fake" art). For artists and gallery owners, fake art is particularly problematic as it can damage an artist’s reputation and lower the value of their genuine works. Those fighting the war on "fake art" received some good news recently, with Justice Vickery ordering the destruction of three drawings falsely attributed to famous Australian artists. However, as the judgment shows, it's not just consumers of art who need to be careful. In this decision an expert art valuer who honestly mistook the "fake" drawings for genuine works was found liable for misleading and deceptive conduct. read more »
Partner: Robert Cooper 
A majority of the US Supreme Court handed down a decision yesterday which draws a fuzzy line between valid patents which claim business methods and invalid ones which merely claim abstract ideas. The decision, Bilski v Kappos, can be found here. read more »
On 23 June 2010, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Google’s motion for summary judgment in Viacom’s $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google’s video sharing site YouTube. read more »
The saga between the University of Western Australia, Sirtex Medical Ltd and Dr Bruce Gray appears to be drawing to a close. The Federal Court has now determined that Sirtex is entitled to recover just under $3 million in damages from its former director and shareholder, Dr Gray. Click here to access the decision. read more »
On 4 May 2010, Justice Stone of the Federal Court delivered judgment in Primary Health Care Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation. The case concerned whether or not income tax deductions could be validly claimed by Primary Health Care (PHC), following its purchase of certain medical practices. The pivotal issue concerned whether copyright subsisted in a range of patient records acquired by PHC. Justice Stone determined that copyright did not subsist in the medical records.
Partner: Natalie Hickey
Some things are not meant to be taken seriously - your daily stars, warehouse rug sales in which 'all stock must go at never before seen prices' and Australia's chances of winning the world cup (this century at least). Other things demand more careful consideration - posting status updates about your employer on Facebook, who you'll vote for at the next election, and compliance with Court orders. It is the last of these that has landed six people in hot water (and 3 in jail!) after they failed to heed a Federal Court ordered injunction that they cease the manufacture and sale of counterfeit sheepskin "UGG" boots. read more »
As a result of reports that patent applications for yoga positions have been lodged in the US, the Indian Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) has once again focused its attention on reviewing hundreds of ancient texts to provide evidence of India’s traditional knowledge in the field of yoga. Previous attempts at this task have provided unsatisfactory results. However, they are now trying again – by videoing the yoga positions that are set out in these texts. read more »
Following Cadbury’s successful trade mark registration for purple last year, Mars (the producer of ‘Whiskas’ cat food) will now have the exclusive right to use its shade of purple (‘Whiskas purple’) on its cat food products. Justice Bennett made this finding after Nestlé withdrew its objection to the trade mark registration. read more »
The case of Keller v LED Technologies Pty Ltd is the Full Federal Court of Australia's first decision on the tests for validity and infringement under the Designs Act 2003. In particular, the Court offers guidance on the new test of “distinctiveness” required for a valid design. Mallesons' Shyama Jayaswal examines the decision here. read more »