Andrew Fox

Aldi has slammed what it says is a novel copyright infringement case alleging the German grocery chain copied the “vibe” of a rival’s snack packaging. 

Elanco Australasia has lost its bid to appeal a finding by IP Australia that a patent acquired from Bayer covering a lice treatment for livestock lacked an inventive step.

A judge has granted Australian bubble tea franchise Sharetea a third adjournment of a trial in a $10 million case brought by its Taiwanese franchisor, despite “very significant concern” that Sharetea’s director did not do everything in his power to find new lawyers in time.

An appeals court has ordered a third trial in a long-running copyright battle between Microsoft and a Melbourne computer retailer, saying the trial judge’s findings were “greatly diminished” by her three-year-long delay in delivering judgment.

A letter by King & Wood Mallesons was an unjustifiable threat of patent litigation against car accessories company Clearview, as was an announcement by the firm’s client MSA, but MSA’s director cannot be held liable as a joint tortfeasor under the Patents Act, a judge has found.

Plaintiff law firm Shine Lawyers has succeeded in narrowing the services an early learning services chain can register its ‘Shine Advantage’ trade mark for.

The government of Peru has appealed a ruling that rejected its bid to trade mark the alcoholic spirit pisco, after an IP Australia delegate found Aussie consumers think of more than Peruvian pisco when they see the name.

TCT Group has won orders revoking two patents for hinges held by Polaris IP as well as indemnity costs, with a judge finding the patentee made “unjustifiable” threats of infringement against TCT over its own brand of soft-close glass hinges.

Lawyerly’s Litigation Law Firms of 2022 racked up precedent-setting victories in a year that continued to see major developments in class action law.

Gaming company Konami will cough up $35.9 million dollars to rival company Aristocrat Technologies next year, eight years after a judge found that it had violated Aristocrat’s patent for a slot machine with an improved jackpot feature.