Tag: Currently browsing "divisional applications"
Blake Dawson - Consequences of a finding of a lack of novelty of an independent claim not applying to dependent claims
Felicity Dougherty and Grant Fisher of Blake Dawson reviews E I Du Pont de Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc [2007] FCAFC 163, an important decision on issue estoppel for patent prosecutions. According to Felicity Dougherty and Grant Fisher, in circumstances where an independent claim of a parent patent application was held to be anticipated, divisional applications (which were amended to avoid the independent claim and rely only on dependent claims) were not automatically considered to be anticipated.
Felicity Dougherty and Grant Fisher note that this case is a reminder to those opposing a patent on the basis that it has been anticipated to ensure that the novelty of all claims is addressed. Importantly, an estoppel on the basis of a finding of anticipation, for example, for related divisional applications, will only cover the claim or claims in respect of which the finding of lack of novelty was made.
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 12 Mar 2008 / 09:36 PM
- Category:
- Patents
Allens Arthur Robinson - Trade Marks Amendment Act 2006
Trade Marks Amendment Act 2006 - Philip Macken, Partner and Peter Ryan, Trade Marks Attorney outlines some of the key amendments to the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth):
- provisions which came into force on Royal Assent (applications accepted after 23 October 2006)
- trade mark ownership provisions
- new opposition grounds and determinations
- Registrar may apply to court for amendment or rectification if in public interest
- non-use removal applicant no longer needs to be ‘aggrieved’
- power of owner to deal with registered trade mark
- provisions to commence next year
- ’series’ trade mark applications
- divisional applications
Link to Allens Arthur Robinson article
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 17 Jan 2007 / 02:13 AM
- Category:
- Trade Marks