Calendar of the patent rolls : preserved in the Public Record Office /

Some volumes are published by Kraus Reprint, Nendeln/Liechtenstein.

Calendar of the Patent rolls preserved in the Public record office /

Prepared under the supervision of H.C. Maxwell Lyte. Text by R.F. Isaacson, vol. 1-15 (with G.J. Morris and H.E. Lawrence, vol. 1; C.B. Dawes, vol. 13-15); C.B. Dawes, vol. 16.

Norfolk records.

Contents--v. 1. Collection of record-references derived from the official ms. indexes ... Edited by Walford D. Selby: Inquisitions post mortem or escheats. Licences and pardons (Alienation Office) Patent rolls. Placita de Banco (Common Pleas) Bills and answers (Exchequer, Queen's Remembrancer)--v. 2. Index to four series of Norfolk inquisitions: Tower series, Chancery or Rolls series, Exchequer series, Wards and Liveries or Court of Wards series ... Edited by Walter Rye.

Rotuli selecti ad res anglicas et hibernicas spectantes : ex archivis in domo capitulari West-monasteriensi, deprompti /

Called Patent rolls.

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.

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.

Access to medicine and the dangers of patent linkage : lessons from Bayer Corp v. Union of India

In February 2010, the Delhi High Court delivered its decision in Bayer Corp v Union of India in which Bayer had appealed against an August 2009 decision of the same court. Both decisions prevented Bayer from introducing the concept of patent linkage into India’s drug regulatory regime. Bayer appealed to the Indian Supreme Court, the highest court in India, which agreed on 2 March 2010 to hear the appeal. Given that India is regarded as a global pharmaceutical manufacturer of generic medications, how its judiciary and government perceive their international obligations has a significant impact on the global access to medicines regime. In rejecting the application of patent linkage, the case provides an opportunity for India to further acknowledge its international human rights obligations.

Physicality in the Information Age : a normative perspective on the patent eligibility of non-physical methods

There has been much conjecture of late as to whether the patentable subject matter standard contains a physicality requirement. The issue came to a head when the Federal Circuit introduced the machine-or-transformation test in In re Bilski and declared it to be the sole test for determining subject matter eligibility. Many commentators criticized the test, arguing that it is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the need for the patent system to respond appropriately to all new and useful innovation in whatever form it arises. Those criticisms were vindicated when, on appeal, the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos dispensed with any suggestion that the patentable subject matter test involves a physicality requirement. In this article, the issue is addressed from a normative perspective: it asks whether the patentable subject matter test should contain a physicality requirement. The conclusion reached is that it should not, because such a limitation is not an appropriate means of encouraging much of the valuable innovation we are likely to witness during the Information Age. It is contended that it is not only traditionally-recognized mechanical, chemical and industrial manufacturing processes that are patent eligible, but that patent eligibility extends to include non-machine implemented and non-physical methods that do not have any connection with a physical device and do not cause a physical transformation of matter. Concerns raised that there is a trend of overreaching commoditization or propertization, where the boundaries of patent law have been expanded too far, are unfounded since the strictures of novelty, nonobviousness and sufficiency of description will exclude undeserving subject matter from patentability. The argument made is that introducing a physicality requirement will have unintended adverse effects in various fields of technology, particularly those emerging technologies that are likely to have a profound social effect in the future.

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.

Physicality in Australian Patent Law

It is generally understood that the patent system exists to encourage the conception and disclosure of new and useful inventions embodied in machines and other physical devices, along with new methods that physically transform matter from one state to another. What is not well understood is whether, and to what extent, the patent system is to encourage and protect the conception and disclosure of inventions that are non-physical methods – namely those that do not result in a physical transformation of matter. This issue was considered in Grant v Commissioner of Patents. In that case the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patentable subject matter. In doing so, it introduced a physicality requirement into Australian law. What this article seeks to establish is whether the court’s decision is consistent with the case law on point. It does so by examining the key common law cases that followed the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regard to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This is done with a view to determining whether there is anything in those cases that supports the view that the Australian patentable subject matter test contains a physicality requirement.