Intellectual Property

Maddocks has recruited a special counsel from Ashurst to head up its trade marks and brand protection practice. 

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.

South Korean biosimilars company Samsung Bioepis has sued Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Biotech to invalidate two patents for Crohn’s disease drug Stelara, after reaching a licencing agreement over the medicine in the US.

A Melbourne orthopaedic clinic has lost its bid to register the name ‘Melbourne Bone and Joint Clinic’ as a trade mark, with a judge finding the phrase was just an ordinary combination of words. 

Thomson Geer has recruited new partners from Gadens and Holding Redlich to strengthen the law firm’s IP and corporate benches.

Australian IP lawyers are closely watching The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit seeking billions in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, but it remains to be seen whether Australia will become a favoured jurisdiction for similar suits or be left playing catch up, experts say.

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.

Allens has recruited an intellectual property expert to lead the law firm’s trade mark practice from its Melbourne office.

Australian beverage company Bickfords, which makes ‘Real McCoy’ whiskey mixed drinks, has successfully opposed rival drink maker Frucor Suntory’s bid to trade mark the same name for a fruit juice product, with an IP Australia delegate finding the beverages were similar.

Sydney real estate group The Agency has lost an appeal in its trade mark case against a rival, with the Full Federal Court upholding a finding that the company would have an “unwarranted monopoly” if other businesses were barred from using the descriptive words in its name.