<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://blogs.mallesons.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Mallesons IP Whiteboard - Litigation and procedure</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/subjects/Litigation+and+procedure</link>
 <description>The latest posts from Mallesons&#039; IP blog delivered to you via RSS.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Justice Jagot rejects ‘manifestly absurd and unreasonable’ construction of new copyright exemption for PI documents</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/justice-jagot-rejects-manifestly-absurd-and-unreasonable-construction-of-new-copyright-</link>
 <description>&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;When Justice Jagot handed down her judgment in &lt;em&gt;Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3)&lt;/em&gt; in August this year (read our Alert &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://www.mallesons.com/publications/marketAlerts/2011/Pages/Pharmaceuticals---copyright-in-PIs-and-indirect-patent-infringement.aspx&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, 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 (“&lt;strong&gt;PI&lt;/strong&gt;”).  Unable to agree on final orders and the effect of the &lt;em&gt;Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Copyright) Act 2011 (the “&lt;strong&gt;Amendment Act&lt;/strong&gt;”),&lt;/em&gt; 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. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/justice-jagot-rejects-manifestly-absurd-and-unreasonable-construction-of-new-copyright-&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/justice-jagot-rejects-manifestly-absurd-and-unreasonable-construction-of-new-copyright-#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/copyright">Copyright</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/health-pharmaceuticals">Health &amp;amp; pharmaceuticals</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/patents">Patents</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/relevant-partner/select-a-partner/kim-oconnell">Kim O&amp;#039;Connell</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:05:09 +1100</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">574 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>iiNet Update: no live tweeting from the High Court hearing</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/iinet-update-no-live-tweeting-from-the-high-court-hearing</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnet.com.au/no-live-tweeting-in-iinet-afact-hearing-339326724.htm&quot;&gt;High Court has requested&lt;/a&gt; that mobile phone and other electronic devices not be taken into the courtroom.  The implication?  No live twitter/facebook/blogging from the hearing. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/iinet-update-no-live-tweeting-from-the-high-court-hearing&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/iinet-update-no-live-tweeting-from-the-high-court-hearing#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/copyright">Copyright</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/technology-media-entertainment-telecommunications">Technology, media, entertainment &amp;amp; telecommunications</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/relevant-partner/select-a-partner/maurice-gonsalves">Maurice Gonsalves</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:59:24 +1100</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">573 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Parody (In the Butt) </title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/parody-in-the-butt</link>
 <description>&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;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. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/parody-in-the-butt&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/parody-in-the-butt#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/copyright">Copyright</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/media">Media</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/technology-media-entertainment-telecommunications/media-entertainment">Media &amp;amp; entertainment</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/partner/select-a-partner/john-swinson">John Swinson</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:49:07 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">509 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Mongols’ logo a no-go?</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/mongols-logo-a-no-go</link>
 <description>&lt;p class=&quot;MsoBodyText&quot;&gt;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. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/mongols-logo-a-no-go&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/mongols-logo-a-no-go#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/trade-marks">Trade marks</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/partner/select-a-partner/john-swinson">John Swinson</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:14:50 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">474 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s a super-injunction!</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-plane-no-it-s-a-super-injunction</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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... &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-plane-no-it-s-a-super-injunction&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-plane-no-it-s-a-super-injunction#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/technology-media-entertainment-telecommunications/media-entertainment">Media &amp;amp; entertainment</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/relevant-partner/select-a-partner/natalie-hickey">Natalie Hickey</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:38:19 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">452 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Ke$ha wound up over use of the term “Tik Tok”  </title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/keha-wound-up-over-use-of-the-term-tik-tok</link>
 <description>&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;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. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/keha-wound-up-over-use-of-the-term-tik-tok&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/keha-wound-up-over-use-of-the-term-tik-tok#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/consumer-retail">Consumer &amp;amp; retail</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/technology-media-entertainment-telecommunications/media-entertainment">Media &amp;amp; entertainment</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/trade-marks">Trade marks</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/relevant-partner/select-a-partner/natalie-hickey">Natalie Hickey</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 10:23:14 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">449 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Case management of divisional application: an IP Whiteboard investigation</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/case-management-of-divisional-application-an-ip-whiteboard-investigation</link>
 <description>&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;If, like the IP Whiteboard team, you’re an avid reader of &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/APO/&quot;&gt;Patents Office decisions&lt;/a&gt;, 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... &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/case-management-of-divisional-application-an-ip-whiteboard-investigation&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/case-management-of-divisional-application-an-ip-whiteboard-investigation#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/patents">Patents</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/relevant-partner/select-a-partner/kim-oconnell">Kim O&amp;#039;Connell</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:14:58 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">445 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Supreme Court dismisses confidential information claim</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/supreme-court-dismisses-confidential-information-claim</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;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&#039;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. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/supreme-court-dismisses-confidential-information-claim&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/supreme-court-dismisses-confidential-information-claim#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/confidentiality">Confidentiality</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/relevant-partner/select-a-partner/robert-cooper">Robert Cooper</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 13:19:22 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">439 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Arbitration of patent disputes</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/arbitration-of-patent-disputes</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The NSW Supreme Court recently considered the extent to which matters concerning patents are arbitrable.  In &lt;em&gt;&lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/268.html&quot;&gt;Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, 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 &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/arbitration-of-patent-disputes&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/arbitration-of-patent-disputes#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/patents">Patents</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/relevant-partner/select-a-partner/robert-cooper">Robert Cooper</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 11:18:08 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">437 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>It’s the Big Apple for Penguin v Buddha</title>
 <link>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/it-s-the-big-apple-for-penguin-v-buddha</link>
 <description>&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;The borderless nature of the internet was instructive in a recent copyright case in the US. &lt;span class=&#039;read-more&#039;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/it-s-the-big-apple-for-penguin-v-buddha&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp;read&amp;nbsp;more&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://blogs.mallesons.com/ipwhiteboard/it-s-the-big-apple-for-penguin-v-buddha#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/copyright">Copyright</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/subjects/litigation-and-procedure">Litigation and procedure</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/technology-media-entertainment-telecommunications/media-entertainment">Media &amp;amp; entertainment</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/sectors/technology-media-entertainment-telecommunications">Technology, media, entertainment &amp;amp; telecommunications</category>
 <category domain="http://blogs.mallesons.com/category/partner/select-a-partner/john-swinson">John Swinson</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:26:47 +1000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mallesons IP Whiteboard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">424 at http://blogs.mallesons.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

