Justice Stephen Burley

Hungry Jack’s is seeking five years of Big Mac sales data as it readies for a fight over damages stemming from its claim that its Big Jack burger has 25 per cent more beef than the McDonald’s burger.

Online marketplace Redbubble has succeeded on appeal in cutting down the damages it owes to Hells Angels from over $78,000 to just $100, following a finding that it violated the motorcycle group’s trade marks.

Appealing her loss in a trade mark stoush with an Australian fashion designer, pop star Katy Perry has argued the woman “should have changed direction” with her ‘Katie Perry’ brand once the singer’s star began to rise. 

The maker of Finish dishwashing products, RB Hygiene, has won a partial appeal in a trade mark stoush with rival Henkel, with the Full Court reviving two of its trade marks but rejecting its challenge to a logo for competing Somat-branded products.

Technology company SARB has partially succeeded in a challenge to a ruling that it infringed a rival’s intellectual property in its development of a parking system used by the City of Melbourne, with an appeals court finding a judge made an error in his reading of the claims of one patent at issue.

A judge has rejected McDonald’s claim that Hungry Jack’s Big Jack burger infringed its Big Mac trade mark, but found that Hungry Jack’s misled consumers by boasting that its burger had 25 per cent more beef.

Indian generic drug maker Cipla has sued pharmaceutical giants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer alleging the patents behind their blockbuster deep vein thrombosis drug Eliquis are invalid.

A solar cell patent at the heart of intellectual property litigation brought by South Korean technology giant Hanwha has been found invalid.

A Federal Court judge who recently ordered new pleadings in a copyright case against CoreLogic is the latest judge fed up with plaintiffs pleading innumerable alternatives that waste court resources, add to the length of trials and extend the wait time for judgments.

Apple can argue an Australian non-practicing entity that claims its patents for a remote entry system were infringed by the tech company’s Touch ID and Face ID technology are invalid because of a Hewlett Packard handheld device that was first sold in 2000.