Astrid Rivalland-Gebert

On 17 August 2011, the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (“ACIP”) released an issues paper entitled “Review of the Innovation Patent System” (the “Issues Paper”). 

In March, we blogged on the decision of a US district judge which held that patents directed to the detection of inheritable breast cancer were invalid (click here to read our earlier post). 

A US district judge has ruled that patents directed to the detection of inheritable breast cancer are invalid, on the basis that the invention was directed towards a law of nature. 

Authorisation seems to be the flavour of the month. 

On 21 September 2009, the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (“ACIP”) released an options paper on patentable subject matter.

On 25 August 2009 Justice Kenny handed down her decision in Medrad Inc v Alpine Medical Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 949. 

The full Federal Court in Mont Adventure Equipment Pty Ltd v Phoenix Leisure Group Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 84 has held that a divisional patent application can rely on the filing date of its parent application and therefore claim the benefit of the 12 month grace period.

In the recent decision Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd, an alleged patent infringer has been allowed to continue supplying its foam dressing kits for product evaluation purposes (such as tender processes), free of charge, notwithstanding the grant of an interlocutory injunction.