Artificial Intelligence Systems or Devices cannot be “inventors” under the Australian Patents Act, the Full Federal Court has confirmed. The inventor of a patent must be a natural person. Does there need to be legislative change to address the role of Artificial Intelligence in the Australian patents scheme? An expanded five judge appeal bench of…
In two separate judgments, the Full Court has provided much needed clarity on how to identify the pharmaceutical products that can support a valid patent term extension in Australia, as Natalie Shoolman, Kent Teague and Rose Jenkins explain in this article. Takeaways: Patent term extensions must be based on the “earliest first regulatory approval date”…
[KEYPOINT]: A historic Federal Court decision says an artificial intelligence system is capable of being named as an “inventor” under the Patents Act 1990, with potentially significant ramifications for technological innovation and the patent system in Australia. In the first judicial determination in the world of its type, the Australian Federal Court has held that…
The Federal Court of Australia has handed down its first detailed damages decision in a long time in a patent infringement claim against a generic pharmaceutical company. In doing so, it sets a new benchmark for damages claims by innovator companies whose products have been illegally copied. In Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v Generic Health Pty…
On 21 October 2016, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the case of Apotex Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 2) [2016] FCA 1238 (FCA Judgment). Justice John Nicholas found in favour of Warner-Lambert, both upholding the validity of its patent claims and granting final injunctions restraining infringement by Apotex….
