Receive Email Updates
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
Tag Archives: Bill Bennett
This is a guest post from Bill Bennett of Pizzeys in Australia. It covers Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd  HCA 50 (4 December 2013). (A copy of the full decision is available at the end of … Continue reading
This is a guest post from Bill Bennett of Pizzeys. Where a divisional application presents claims for examination which have been previously rejected in the parent (or grand-parent) application, then the APO will give the applicant only 2 months to … Continue reading
The Australian Patent Office appears to grappling with the requirement that a physical effect take place in order for a business method to be patentable. This note sent by Bill Bennett of Pizzeys Patent and Trademark Attorneys raises interesting issues about the need for … Continue reading
A note from Bill Bennett of Pizzeys (Australia seems to be adopting the standard from In re O’Farrell just as the US courts are distancing themselves from it): We have previously flagged that the APO might modify their practice in … Continue reading