High Court decision on duty owed by licensee to patron

In a previous column of Queensland Lawyer,1 the case of Scott v CAL No 14 Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 256 ALR 512 was discussed. Special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was granted and on 10 November 2009 the High Court handed down its decision.

The problem child in Australian patent law : "fair" basing

The concept of "fair basing" is widely acknowledged as a difficult area of patent law. This article maps the development of fair basing law to demonstrate how some of the difficulties have arisen. Part I of the article traces the development of the branches of patent law that were swept under the nomenclature of "fair basing" by British legislation in 1949. It looks at the early courts' approach to patent construction, examines the early origin of fair basing and what it was intended to achiever. Part II of the article considers the modern interpretation of fair basing, which provides a striking contrast to its historical context. Without any consistent judicial approach to construction the doctrine has developed inappropriately, giving rise to both over-strict and over-generous approaches.

The inherent equitable jurisdiction and the plenary power of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to order the winding up of companies

Not all companies in Australia are amenable to a winding up order pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Supreme Court of New South Wales has previously dealt with such winding up applications by apparently focusing on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to firstly consider the winding up application. This article proposes an original alternative paradigm: the plenary power provided to the court by s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) can be utilised to initially attract the jurisdiction of the court and subsequently the inherent jurisdiction specifically utilising the equitable “just and equitable” ground is available to the court to consider and make such a winding up order if appropriate. Variation of such a paradigm may also be available to the court when considering the inherent jurisdiction in relation to corporation matters more generally.

Play a role in the patent puzzle

Discusses the contentious issues surrounding computer software patents and patenting in connection with the Peer-to-Patent Australia project, a joint initiative of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and New York Law School (NYLS) that operates with the support and endorsement of IP Australia, the government body housing Australia's patent office. Explains that the project is based on the successful Peer-to-Patent pilots run recently in the USA and Japan that are designed to improve the quality of issued patents and the patent examination process by facilitating community participation in that process. Describes how members of the public are allowed to put forward prior art references that will be considered by IP Australia's patent examiners when determining whether participating applications are novel and inventive, and therefore deserving of a patent. Concludes that, while Peer-to-Patent Australia is not a complete solution to the problems besetting patent law, the model has considerable advantages over the traditional model of patent examination

The peer-to-patent initiative : revitalizing patent examination with peer review

Every day we hear someone complain that this or that patent should not have been granted. People complain that the patent system is now a threat to existing business and innovation be- cause the patent office grants with alarming regularity patents for inventions that are neither novel nor non-obvious. People argue that the patent office cannot keep up with the job of examining the backlog of hundreds of thousands of patents and that, even if it could, the large volumes of prior art literature that need to be considered each time a patent application is received make the decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not a treacherous one.

Peer-to-Patent Australia: First Anniversary Report, December 2010

Peer-to-Patent Australia will initially run as a 12 month pilot project designed to test whether an open community of reviewers can effectively locate prior art that might not otherwise be located by the patent office during a typical examination. Patent applications will be made available for peer review for a period of 6 months and there will follow a 6 month period of joint qualitative and quantitative assessment of the pilot project by IP Australia and QUT. The objective of Peer-to-Patent Australia is to improve the patent examination process and the quality of issued patents by utilising the knowledge and skills of experts in the broader community. It is a way of linking the scientific and technical expertise of anyone with an Internet connection with the expertise of a patent examiner. That community participation consists of members of the public reviewing patent applications and contributing relevant prior art references and comments within a web-based forum. The aim is to bring to light prior art, particularly non-patent prior art, that might otherwise not be identified by patent examiners. The better the prior art resources a patent examiner has at his or her disposal, the more likely a patent application will be assessed properly in terms of novelty and inventive step. The role of Peer-to-Patent Australia in this regard is to act as both a facilitator of discussion and a collector of prior art submissions. Peer-to-Patent Australia collects relevant prior art references on behalf of the reviewing community and forwards that prior art to IP Australia. Section 27 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) allows for the Commissioner of Patents to receive submissions of prior art by third parties relevant to the novelty and inventiveness of a particular patent application.

Standardisation and patent ambush : potential liability under Australian competition law

This article examines the problem of patent ambush in standard setting, where patent owners are sometimes able to capture industry standards in order to secure monopoly power and windfall profits. Because standardisation generally introduces high switching costs, patent ambush can impose significant costs on downstream manufacturers and consumers and drastically reduce the efficiency gains of standardisation.This article considers how Australian competition law is likely to apply to patent ambush both in the development of a standard (through misrepresenting the existence of an essential patent) and after a standard is implemented (through refusing to license an essential patented technology either at all or on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms). This article suggests that non-disclosure of patent interests is unlikely to restrained by Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (TPA), and refusals to license are only likely to be restrained if the refusal involves leveraging or exclusive dealing. By contrast, Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs) which seek to limit this behaviour through private ordering may face considerable scrutiny under the new cartel provisions of the TPA. This article concludes that SSOs may be best advised to implement administrative measures to prevent patent hold-up, such as reviewing which patents are essential for the implementation of a standard, asking patent holders to make their licence conditions public to promote transparency, and establishing forums where patent licensees can complain about licence terms that they consider to be unreasonable or discriminatory. Additionally, the ACCC may play a role in authorising SSO policies that could otherwise breach the new cartel provisions, but which have the practical effect of promoting competition in the standards setting environment.

Queensland Court of Appeal opines on the meaning of 'material prejudice'

The decision of Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd was the subject of an article in an earlier edition of this journal. At that time, it was foreshadowed that the decision was to be taken on appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Wilson is considered in this article.

Waiver in the Court of Appeal

The vagaries inherent in the operation of special conditions in land sale contracts have commonly required judicial interpretation. A further illustration is provided by the recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (Jerrard, Keane JJA and Philip McMurdo J) in Donaldson and Donaldson v Bexton and Bexton [2006] QCA 559.