Tag Archives: Bill Bennett

Australia – High Court Decision on Methods of Medical Treatment

This is a guest post from Bill Bennett of Pizzeys in Australia. It covers Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50 (4 December 2013). (A copy of the full decision is available at the end of … Continue reading

Posted in Australian Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Divided We Fall – New Rules Limit Divisional Applications in Australia

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

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Let’s Get Physical! Australian Patent Office Wrestles With Method Claims

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

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Australian Patent Office Grapples With “Obvious To Try”

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

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment