Lawyerly’s Litigation Firms of 2020 delivered significant victories for clients last year in bet-the-company matters, thriving in a tumultuous year that saw courts and litigants adapt to virtual trials and other new norms that are sure to outlast the COVID-19 pandemic.
The High Court has ruled that a patentee’s rights to control what can be done with a patented product after it is sold are “exhausted” upon sale.
IP Australia has appealed a judge’s decision to allow four Aristocrat gaming patents to proceed to grant, hoping for another victory after winning two high stakes challenges to software patents before the Full Federal Court.
A judge has trimmed the costs the Commissioner of Patents owes Aristocrat Technologies after the gaming giant successfully appealed a ruling rejecting four of its gaming patents, saying Aristocrat had “over-egged the pudding” by submitting evidence from three experts on the patentability of its inventions.
Gaming giant Aristocrat Technologies has succeeded in its appeal of an IP Australia decision rejecting four of its gaming patents, with a judge finding they were “not a mere scheme” but an actual manner of manufacture.
Fonterra Brands has been blocked from accessing documents recording a witness statement made and later disputed by Bega’s executive chairman, in a dispute between the two dairy companies over a trade mark licence agreement.
Global chemicals giant SNF has dropped its case against rival BASF over a lucrative mining patent, the last of numerous Federal Court disputes between the companies.
Gaming giant Aristocrat Technologies told a court that if its Lightning Link slot machine was a physical game there would be no doubt about its patentability, as trial kicked off Monday in another case that is pushing back on IP Australia’s stance on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
A judge has allowed a company associated with leading tyre retailer Bob Jane T-Mart to register three trade marks for its brand of Monster alloy wheels, dismissing claims from US energy drink giant Monster Energy that allowing the registration would lead to confusion.
A judge applied the “wrong test” when he considered the reputation of a trade mark in an infringement case alleging the marks of rival meat processors were deceptively similar, a Full Federal Court has found.