intellectual property lpab summer session 2012-13 therese catanzariti
TRANSCRIPT
Intellectual PropertyLPAB Summer Session 2012-13
Therese Catanzariti
Therese Catanzariti
Every person who shall build any new and ingenious device in this City not previously made in our Commonwealth shall notice of it to the office of our General Welfare Board when it has been reduced to perfection so that it can be used and operated. It is forbidden to every other person in any of our territories and towns to make any further device conforming with and similar to said one without the consent and licence of the author for the term of 10 years…
We have among us men of great genius, apt to invent and discover ingenious devices… more such men come to us every day from diverse parts. Now if provision were made for the works and devices discovered by such persons so that others who may see them could both build them and take the inventor’s honour away, more men would then apply their genius, would discover, and would build devices of great utility and benefit to our Commonwealth.
Venice Statute 1474
Therese Catanzariti
A monopoly being a derogation from the common right of freedom of trade could not be granted without consideration moving to the public .. In the case of new inventions the consideration was found either in the interest of the public to encourage inventive ingenuity or more probably in the disclosure made to the public of a new and useful article or process
Attorney General (Cth) v Adelaide Steamship Co
[1913] AC 781 at 394 per Lord Parker
Therese Catanzariti
The main purpose of a patent system is to stimulate industrial invention and innovation by granting limited monopoly rights to inventors and by increasing public availability of information on new technology
Second Reading Speech, Patent Amendment Bill 1981
Therese Catanzariti
Pharmaceutical products and processes Engineering products and processes Medical and therapeutic devices Micro-organisms Computer technology Chemical compounds Consumer electronics
Therese Catanzariti
1992, 1996 - CSIRO Radio-Physics team develop technique to to cut through atmospheric distortion and “unsmear” the signal to measure the pulses emanating from exploding black holes
1994 - IEEE 802.11 telecommunications standard allows an electronic device to exchange data wirelessly (using
radio waves) over a computer network, including high-speed Internet connection
1998 - CSIRO assert rights in 802.11 standard
April 2009 - CSIRO royalties $250 million (Dell, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Nintendo and Toshiba)
total royalties $440 million
Therese Catanzariti
Therese Catanzariti
Therese Catanzariti
Venice 1474 – privileges for inventors of new arts and machines
Elizabeth I –royal prerogative to grant privileges
Darcy v Allin – monopoly for foreign playing cardsCourt declared monopoly void because monopolies raise prices, debase quality, cause unemploymentbut could grant monopoly for inventions
James I - Statute of Monopolies 1624declare monopolies void except for inventions“sole working or making of any manner of new manufacture …[granted] to the true and first inventor Therese Catanzariti
Standard patents Innovation patents (introduced 2001) Patents of addition
◦ protect improvements and modifications of granted patent
Standard patents may be Standard Selection patents
◦ Select member/s from previously known class and find new uses and qualities
Combination patents◦ elements or integers in claim interact with each other
to produce new result or product
Therese Catanzariti
Replace petty patents Only require “innovative step” (not inventive step) Up to 5 claims Max term 8 years Presumed valid – formality check only no extensive examination tho can’t enforce unless certifed after examination not plants or animals or biological processes for
their generation
Dura-Post v Delnorth Pty Ltd
Therese Catanzariti
Provisional ◦ Describe invention◦ Secure priority date◦ 12 months to file full application
Complete – s40(2) – (4) and Sched 3, Regulations◦ Fully describe inventionincluding best method for performing it known to A◦ claims defining invention and delineating monopoly◦ claims must be clear, succinct and fairly based on
matter described
Therese Catanzariti
patent subsist from priority date prior art base examined from priority date
date file complete specification date file provisional specification if – s43, r3.12-3.13
◦ file complete specification within 12 months◦ complete specification fairly based on provisional specification
for amendments, date file amendments – s114, r3.14 date file application in Paris Convention countryprovided file in Australia within 12 months – s94-96, r3.12 date file Patent Co-operation Treaty application – s88-93
Therese Catanzariti
Mond Nickel Company has claimed invention been broadly described in provisional
specification Does provisional specification contain anything which is
inconsistent with claimed invention Does claim include a feature which the provisional
specification is silent
CCOM v Jiejing not over-meticulous verbal analysis
Rehm v Webster Security System International Specification contained a real and reasonably clear disclosure
of invention Alleged invention as claimed is broadly, in a general sense,
described in specification
Therese Catanzariti
Preliminary processing and publish details – s53 After 18 months from priority date, publish specification for
open public inspection (OPI) s54 – 55, r4,2, 4.3 Request examination (lapse if no request within 5 years) – s44
◦ Applicant must disclose foreign documentary searches◦ Person eligible under s15◦ Application satisfy formal requirements s29◦ Specification complies s40 ◦ Invention is manner of new manufacture, novel and inventive (balance
of probabilities)◦ Invention not excluded from patentability – s18, 50◦ Application not “double patenting”
Acceptance – s49or adverse report – can amend application – s104, 107 3 months for opposition – s59, r5.3
◦ Applicant not entitled◦ Invention not patentable – s18◦ Specification not comply s40
Sealed grant – s61 -62 Re-examination (on request) – s97 - 98
◦ Novelty and inventive stepTherese Catanzariti
20 years from date of complete specification – s65 and r6.3(date), s67 (term)
extend max +5 yrs for pharmaceutical substance – s70◦ included in Register Therapeutic Goods◦ at least 5 years between patent date and first
regulatory approval date for substancebecause health and safety laws reduce effective
term because need provide extensive trial and test data
3rd party can use pharma patent for non-therapeutic or making application to get marketing approval – s119A
Therese Catanzariti
Patentee not entitled Not patentable invention Patent obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation Specification not comply s40
Infringer can counter-claim revocation – s121
Therese Catanzariti
“manner of manufacture” within Statute of Monopolies
Novel Involves an inventive step Useful Not been the subject of secret use not human beings and biological processes
for their generation
distinct requirements of a patentable invention – CCOM v Jiejing
Therese Catanzariti
refer to 1624 Statute so import caselaw – NV Phillips v Mirabella
Products or processes that have an industrial application
If follow specification, produce product or produce results
A27 TRIPS – capable of industrial application
Therese Catanzariti
"a method or process is a manner of manufacture if it
(a) results in the production of some vendible product or
(b) improves or restores to its former condition a vendible product or
(c) has the effect of preserving from deterioration some vendible product to which it is applied
Therese Catanzariti
new method of killing weeds (thistle, nettle) in broadleaf crops (celery, parsnip, clover, lucerne) using known product
Word “manufacture” used not to reduce patentability but as part of general title for whole category of patentability
May be discovery without invention – discovery of some piece of abstract information without any suggestion of a practical application of it to a useful end
method’s end result is artificially created effect the result possesses its own economic utility
consisting in an important improvement in the conditions in which the crop is to grow, whereby it is afforded a better opportunity to flourish and yield a good harvest.
Therese Catanzariti
The point is that a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art - that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour.
Therese Catanzariti
“what is meant by a "product" in relation to a process is only something in which the new and useful effect may be observed. Sufficient authority has been cited to show that the "something" need not be a "thing" in the sense of an article; it may be any physical phenomenon in which the effect, be it creation or merely alteration, may be observed: a building (for example), a tract or stratum of land, an explosion, an electrical oscillation.
Therese Catanzariti
discovery is only patentable when embodied in practical, technical or industrial application
Diamond v Diehr Process for molding raw, uncured rubber into
cured precision products Arrhenius equation (rubber burning point) - not
patentable Use Arrhenius equation in a computer program
to open the press and remove the rubber - patentable
Therese Catanzariti
Computer program is algorithmbut if applied for a particular result
IBM v Commissioner of Patentsimproved method for producing curved images in computer graphics
Controlling computers to operate in a particular way CCOM v JiejingAssemble text in Chinese characters on computer
screen
mode or manner of achieving an end result which is an artificially created state of affairs of utility in the field of economic endeavour
Therese Catanzariti
Welcome Real Time SA v Catuity Inc method involving credit smart cards that included computer
chip that recorded loyalty points from multiple distinct retailers onto a computer file on chip
No physically observable end result in the sense of a tangible product, but tangible result from POS terminal writing information into computer file and print coupon
Grant v Commissioner of Patents 2005 Method to protect assets against unsecured creditor’s claims –
create trust, gift to trust, trustee loan sum from trust, secure loan by charge
“the method of his patent does not produce any artificial state of affairs, in the sense of a concrete, tangible, physical, or observable effect”
Physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation is required.
Mere scheme, abstract idea, intellectual information
Therese Catanzariti
Some countries expressly exclude – TRIPS A27 exception Initially excluded as essentially non-economic Joos v Commissioner of Patents – strengthen hair and
nails commercial application in hairdressing
Anaesthetic Supplies v Rescare – method and device for reducing sleep apnoea
Bristol Myers Squibb v Faulding – method of administering drug to treat cancer
Patient may be denied medical treatment but no distinction in principle between product treating
human and method of treating human but encourage research especially new uses of existing
drugs – eg aspirin
Therese Catanzariti
Is novel when compared to prior art base at priority date
New – not been done before
even if the reason that it has not been done before is because it is silly or obvious
Therese Catanzariti
whether prior art base anticipates the invention prior art base reveal essential features of invention
Hill v EvansA person of ordinary knowledge of the subject would at once perceive, understand, and be able to practically to apply the discovery without necessary of making further experiments and gaining further information… Whatever is essential to the invention must be read out of the prior publication
Meyers Taylor v Vicarr IndustriesReverse infringement test – if the patent was valid, would the prior art infringe the patent
Therese Catanzariti
System of using “tilt up walls” device to quickly build concrete walls
Ramset – essential feature was extended length of lever arm, designed to prevent premature release of clutch not provision of cable
Advanced – essential feature are hoisting cable, shackle, anchor in wall section, ring clutch and a release cable
Release cable is essential because specification emphasis that invention is quickly releasable
prior art does not disclose release cable so not anticipated
Therese Catanzariti
Information in document that is publicly available Information made publicly available through doing an act Information in complete specification with earlier priority date
even if unpublished at date of application
Information in single document Information in single act information in documents or acts if relationship between
documents and acts that person skilled in the relevant art would treat as a single source of information – s7(1)
Can’t mosaic if information is not otherwise cross-referenced or connected
“the picking out of individual items from prior publications… and assembling them together so as to give them an appearance of unity and then alleging that such mosaic reveals the very thing claimed… not a permissible process” - 3M v Bieirsdorf
Therese Catanzariti
If the public has access to it, free to use information
Even if disclosed to one w/o obligation confidentialityFomento v Mentmore – ballpoint pen given to govt deptMerck v Arrow Pharmaceuticals – Lunar News given to
some hospitals/universities and not catalogued
Even if no-one but an expert can understand it
Even if in a foreign languageDennison Manufacturing v Monarch Marketing Systems –
specification about plastic tags to attach price labels“document resting quietly in French language in
Canberra”
Therese Catanzariti
Distribute samples Manufacture devices and products Display at public event Offers to sell Description in obscure publication Information on internet Images on internet
Therese Catanzariti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo
Therese Catanzariti
must file within 12 months (some 6 months)
Publication without patentee’s consent Disclosure to public authorities Showing or use at recognised exhibition Publication in paper and read or published
by learned society Working in public of invention for reasonable
trial if necessary for working to be in public◦ Newall & Elliott – laying submarine telegraph cable
Patentee’s use or disclosure in the previous 12 months (general grace period)
Therese Catanzariti
can’t be novel if method uses known substances for purposes consistent with known properties
Only if method uses unknown or unsuspected property of the material so that it serves a new purpose
NRDC v Commissioner Patents
Therese Catanzariti
real advance and more than an obvious extension, variation or combination of prior art
invention involves inventive step – s7(2)unless obvious to person skilled in art in light of ◦ common general knowledge in Australia ◦ certain prior art(from April 2013 – common general knowledge
anywhere, any prior art) certain prior art – s7(3)
prior art information / combination of prior art information skilled person reasonably expected to have ascertained, understood, regarded as relevant and combined
Therese Catanzariti
Identify relevant art Construct hypothetical skilled person
Skilled but non-inventive ,not particularly imaginative worker in relevant field – 3M v Beiersdorf
Identify scope ◦ common general knowledgecommon general knowledge of person skilled in art, information known or used by those in relevant trade, background knowledge and experience – 3M v Beiersdorfmay not include all public knowledge, published specsstandard textbooks, technical manuals, trade magazines ◦ prior artnotional skilled reasonably expected to ascertain, understand,
regard as relevant, and combine if separateEmperor Sports – not reasonably expect ARL coach, referee,
umpire or administrator to conduct USPTO search
Would hypothetical skilled person knowing the information have found it obvious to take the step
Therese Catanzariti
even if simple not merely skill, tenancy, managerial
efficiency using familiar theory not if difference plain or very plain not if take routine steps/experiments that
try as matter of course
Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm – active ingredient coated to allow tablet to pass through stomach but dissolve in intestine
Therese Catanzariti
solution to a problem (but inventiveness may be in articulating the
problem) Satisfy long felt need Commercial success of the invention(but may be good workmanship, price or other
qualities) Willingness of rivals to create imitation
may be slow and laborious or brilliant coup
Therese Catanzariti
Results promised in the specification can be achieved by following the instructions in the specification
Does what the patentee intended, achieves intended result
not if the apparatus does not work as claimed read in light of specification as a whole according to
what an intelligent person skilled in art and desirous of making use of invention would do
from April 2013 - a specific, substantial and credible use for the invention is disclosed in the Patent specification – s7A
Therese Catanzariti
Prevent patentee effectively prolonging monopoly
Whether patentee obtained a commercial benefit from activity before priority date – Azuko v Old Digger
exceptions – s9 reasonable trial and experiment Use by a public authority Use solely in course of confidential disclosure
(eg to patent attorney, potential investor) Other uses for purpose other than trade or
commerce
Therese Catanzariti
“manner of manufacture” exclude patents that are contrary to law or generally inconvenient
A27 TRIPS – members may exclude patentability …to protect human life
Re Woo-Suk Hwang No patent for method of producing hybrid
embryo created by transferring nucleus of human cell into bovine ovum and activating the ovum
Fertilitescentrum AB and Luminis Pty Ltd Method of growing pre-blastocyst human
embryos in a specifed medium
Therese Catanzariti
Describe invention fully, including the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention
claims must be clear and succinct and fairly based on the matter described in the specification
Therese Catanzariti
sufficiency - describe invention fully describe fully enough to allow informed reader
with reasonable skill in trade to perform
disclose best method known of carrying out invention
from April 2013 - specification discloses invention in manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art
Therese Catanzariti
public has right to know what may/may not do
define clearly and with precision the monopoly claimed so that others know the exact boundaries of area
Skilled addressee applying common sense and common knowledge
ambiguous if claims lack clarity
Therese Catanzariti
Compare claims with invention disclosed in specification
Lockwood Security Products v Doric Productspatent for a key controlled latch
Whether real and reasonably clear disclosure in body of specification of what is then claimed, so that the alleged invention as claimed is broadly, that is to say, in a general sense, described in the body of the specification
from April 2013 - claims are fully supported by the description
Therese Catanzariti
Eligible person – s15◦ inventor ◦ assignee of inventor (person who would be
entitled to have patent assigned to them)◦ Successor to inventor or assignee◦ Legal personal representative
Joint owners – s16◦ own as tenants in common ◦ can work patent without accounting◦ can’t grant licence or assign without other’s
consent
Therese Catanzariti
objectively assess contributions - if person’s contribution had a material effect on the final concept of the invention
concept of invention from whole of specification in claims
don’t look at inventiveness of the contribution
Polwood v Foxworth –method and apparatus for producing potting mix from waste organic materialsPolwood – steam treatment and de-watering procesFoxwood – extended range of materials, design and build apparatus to put process into effect
joint inventors
Therese Catanzariti
Employers not automatically entitled Only if entitled to be assignee – s15(2)
Employment contract◦ Express term◦ Implied termUWA v Gray – UWA professor research use of
microspheres for treatment of cancerous tumours especially liver
not necessary to imply termobliged to conduct research but no duty to invent
Therese Catanzariti
Nature of invention Duties employee engaged to perform Employee’s position in the company Circumstances invention made
◦ Whether made during working hours◦ Whether useful to employer business◦ Whether employee responding to employer
instructions
Therese Catanzariti
Exclusive right to exploit invention and authorise others to exploit – s13(1)
Exploit – Sched 1 Product - make, use, sell or otherwise
dispose, import or keep for purpose of exploiting
Process – use the method, and exploit any resulting product
Therese Catanzariti
Assignment◦ capable of assignment – s13(2)◦ assign in writing signed by assignor – s14
Security interests◦ Register interests Register of Patents – s187,
r19.1◦ Personal Property Securities Act
Licence ◦ register interest Register of Patents – s187,r19.1◦ Co-owners must all consent to licence – s16
Therese Catanzariti
Implied licence◦ Purchaser’s right to use product◦ right to repair product
Compulsory licence – s133, r12.1Person may apply to Federal Court for licence to work invention◦ Patentee fail to satisfy reasonable requirements of public
trade or industry unfairly prejudiced or demand not met because fail manufacture to adequate extent, supply on reasonable terms or grant licences on reasonable terms – s135
applicant made reasonable efforts for reasonable time to obtain licence on reasonable terms
Patentee no satisfactory reason for failing to exploit◦ Patentee using exclusivity to act anti-competitively
contravening Consumer and Competition Act Crown use for services of Commonwealth or State – s163Exploitation necessary for proper provision of servicesMust pay remuneration – s165
Therese Catanzariti
applicant is registered proprietor or exclusive licensee
patent in force defendant perform act in Australia after date of publication act within patent owner’s exclusive rights
Therese Catanzariti
Claims determine legal limits of monopoly construe claims then compare infringing article
Decor Corporation v Dart Industries Kinabulu Invstments v Barron and Rawson Purposive construction Read specification as whole Don’t confine claims by limitations in specification(tho specifications may define or qualify words in
claims, may resolve ambiguity and provide background
Court construe not expert Terms given ordinary English meaning(tho evidence from experts on scientific or technical
terms)
Therese Catanzariti
purposive construction rather than literal construction essential requirements of invention – essential integers of
claimstill infringe if replace inessential with mechanical equivalents
Catnic Components v Hill & Smith lintel in spanning space above window and door openings Claim – supporting back plate extending vertically Infringer – back plate 6o from vertical, with no significant
change of strength or function whether persons with practical knowledge and experience of
kind of work in which invention intended to be used would understand that strict compliance with a particular descriptive word was intended to be essential requirement so any variation was outside monopoly
Therese Catanzariti
must complete finished article including all integers Dunlop Pneumatic Typre v David Moseleybicycle wheel – hub, spoke, rim, tubeless tyrenot infringe to manufacture tyre onlyeven if intend consumers to combine with other
integers
include if manufacture product in course of manufacturing non-infringing product
Bedford Industries v Pinefairgarden edging product including pine logs arranged side by side and connected by two strands of bandschanged product by severing strip so secured by hinges
Therese Catanzariti
not if merely possess, purchase, own not if merely warehouse or transport
infringe even if selling components that consumer must assemble
Windsurfing International v Petitsale sailboard in kit of parts
esp because common way of selling sailboard
Therese Catanzariti
use Product – unauthorised commercial use Process – any unauthorised use
import Patentee may control importbut only where patentee imposes conditionsotherwise exhaustion of rights
Therese Catanzariti
supply integer knowing that recipient will combine with other integers
supply unpatented product with instructions to recipient to use in infringing way
=>supplier not infringing=>supplier may not be joint tortfeasor because merely facilitating not participating because no common design
Therese Catanzariti
If use of product would infringe patentthen supply of product is infringement Use of product
◦ Use if only one reasonable use◦ Any use if supplier reason to believe that person
would put to use (unless staple commercial product)
◦ Use of product in accordance with supplier’s instructions
◦ Use of product pursuant to any inducement by supplier
Therese Catanzariti
Bristol Myers v Faulding method of administering anti-cancer drug Faulding provide hospitals with product information
guides and protocols If the doctor’s use of drug would infringe BM
patents, F’s supply to doctor infringes patent
NT v Collins method for producing blue essential oils ffrom
cypress pine NT grant licence to ACOC to enter NT land and take
timber Product is any product - not limited to product from
use of patented method
Therese Catanzariti
Authorisemore than countenance or enable
Misleading and Deceptive – s18 ACL Advanced Building Systems v Ramset
Fastenerssupplier may be guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct for failing to warn customers of real possibility that use of products infringe patentee’s patent
Therese Catanzariti
act to include therapeutic goods on Register of Therapeutic Goods s 119A
act to obtain approval required by Cth / State law to exploit a non-pharma product, method or process - s119B
(eg conduct research and trials necessary to gain regulatory approval)
experimental uses of the patented invention
– s119C
Therese Catanzariti
foreign vessels temporarily in patent area – 118
prior use – s119person exploiting, or taken definite steps to exploit product or process before priority datenot if stop exploiting or abandon steps to exploit before priority date except temporarily
Therese Catanzariti
Apple claim Samsung Galaxy infringe claims in two Apple patents
touch screen patent heuristic patent
Samsung seek revocation◦ Leeper article◦ Mulligan patent application
Therese Catanzariti