Imagine an organisation obtaining patent protection over a formulation derived from Kakadu plum, while the First Nations community whose Knowledge guided the discovery receives neither recognition nor benefit.
Interlocutory injunctions can be a critical tool to help protect intellectual property rights by restraining alleged infringement while a substantive infringement proceeding is run.
Two weeks ago, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) filed proceedings against the makers of the COVID-19 SPIKEVAX® vaccine, Moderna, Inc in the US Federal District Court in Delaware alleging that Moderna has infringed its patents relating to messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.
Earlier this year, the Federal Court in Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd (No 5) endorsed a split election for damages and an account of profits in a quantum decision for patent infringement.[1] This is the first time this issue has been decided (previous orders for split election were made by consent) and would allow a patentee to elect damages or an account of profits for each act of infringement to maximise compensation.
On 15 January 2020, China and the United States (US) signed “Phase One” of the Economic and Trade Agreement (‘ETA’), signalling an armistice of the trade war that has significantly impacted two of the world’s largest economies (not to mention the rest of us).
On 23 October 2019, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its highly anticipated decision in Shanks v Unilever Plc and others [2019] UKSC 45.