Intellectual property and joint ventures

This chapter outlines the most important ways in which intellectual property is protected in Australia, and also the factors which affect the rights of joint venture participants in the absence of specific agreement between such participants. It then examines particular issues which may be considered in preparing appropriate documentation for any joint venture which involves the utilisation or generation of intellectual property to ensure that the joint venture participants achieve their desired result in terms of the allocation of ownership and control of such rights. The analysis includes and explanation of the special considerations which affect co-operation in research between industry and a university or government research institution. Finally, the rights of the joint venturers to intellectual property upon termination of the joint ventures are considered.

Intellectual Property and Development : Theory and Practice

The book examines the correlation between Intellectual Property Law – notably copyright – on the one hand and social and economic development on the other. The main focus of the initial overview is on historical, legal, economic and cultural aspects. Building on that, the work subsequently investigates how intellectual property systems have to be designed in order to foster social and economic growth in developing countries and puts forward theoretical and practical solutions that should be considered and implemented by policy makers, legal experts and the Word Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Intellectual property, TRIPS and development

Intellectual property is crucial to the promotion of innovation. It provides an incentive to innovate as well as security for investment in innovation. The industries of the 21st century-information technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, communications, education and entertainment – are all knowledge-based. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), adopted in 1994 at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, requires all WTO member countries to provide for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Having forged a link for the first time between intellectual property rights and the international trading system, the adoption of TRIPS means that any country that aims to participate fully in the global economy needs to understand the role of intellectual property and align its intellectual property laws and practices with the international minimum standards prescribed by TRIPS. However, for developing and least-developed countries, the implementation of intellectual property systems and enforcement mechanisms raises questions and challenges. Does recognition and enforcement of intellectual property serve their development needs and objectives? Does TRIPS encourage or hinder the transfer of technologies to developing and least-developed countries, particularly those that meet urgent needs in areas such as public health, food security, water and energy? What is the effect of TRIPS on developing countries’ access to knowledge and information? Is there scope for flexibility in implementation of TRIPS in pursuit of development strategies?

Property : a regulatory instrument for protecting private and public interests in the environment

Property in an elusive concept. In many respects it has been regarded as a source of authority to use, develop and make decisions about whatever is the subject matter of this right of ownership. This is true whether the holder of this right of ownership is a private entity or a public entity. Increasingly a right of ownership of this kind has been recognised not only as a source of authority but also as a mechanism for restricting or limiting and perhaps even prohibiting existing or proposed activities that impact upon the environment. It is increasingly therefore an instrument of regulation as much as an instrument of authorisation. The protection and conservation of the environment are ultimately a matter of the public interest. This is not to suggest that the individual holders of rights of ownership are not interested in protecting the environment. It is open to them to do so in the exercise of a right of ownership as a source of authorisation. However a right of ownership – whether private or public – has become increasingly the mechanism according to which the environment is protected and conserved through the use of rights of ownership as a means of regulation. This paper addressed these issues from a doctrinal as well as a practical perspective in how the environment is managed.

Copyrights and copyfights : copyright law and the digital economy

This paper will consider questions around the reform of copyright law, and how they are increasingly being framed by the challenges of the digital economy. It discusses the review of copyright and the digital economy being undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission, with particular reference to the costs and benefits of copyright law to consumers and creative producers. We argue that there is a pressing need to develop fair copyright rules that encourage investment in the digital economy, allow widespread dissemination of knowledge through society, and support the innovative reuse of copyright works. To better align copyright law with these goals, we recommend that Australia introduce an open ended ‘fair use’ style copyright exception, and encourage the development of a digital copyright exchange of the sort discussed in the UK by the Hargreaves and Hooper Reports.

Intellectual Property and Joint Ventures

As in the first edition of the book, this chapter outlines the most important ways in which intellectual property is protected in Australia, and also the factors which affect the rights of joint venture participants in the absence of specific agreement between such participants. It then examines particular issues which may be considered in preparing appropriate documentation for any joint venture which involves the utilisation or generation of intellectual property to ensure that the joint venture participants achieve their desired result in terms of the allocation of ownership and control of such rights. The analysis includes and explanation of the special considerations which affect co-operation in research between industry and a university or government research institution. Finally, the rights of the joint venturers to intellectual property upon termination of the joint ventures are considered. The chapter incorporates the legislative changes and new cases in the field since the publication of the first edition.

When should private property rights give way to the public interest?

Since Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 177 it has been recognised that corporations with substantial market power are subject to special responsibilities and restraints that corporations without market power are not. In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR 90 McHugh A-CJ, Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ in their joint reasons stated (at [76]), that s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) can operate not only to prevent firms with substantial market power from doing prohibited things, but also compel them positively to do things they do not want to do. Their Honours also stated (at [126]) that the proposition that a private property owner who declines to permit competitors to use the property is immune from s 46 is “intrinsically unsound”. However, the circumstances in which a firm with substantial power must accommodate competitors, and private property rights give way to the public interest are uncertain. The purpose of this Note is to consider recent developments in two areas of the CCA where the law requires private property rights to give way to the public interest. The first part of the Note considers two recent cases which clarify the circumstances in which s 46 of the CCA can be used to compel a firm with substantial market power to accommodate a competitor and allow the competitor to make use of private property rights in the public interest. Secondly, on 12 February 2014 the Minister for Small Business, the Hon Bruce Billson,released the Productivity Commission’s Final Report, on the National Access Regime in Pt IIIA of the CCA (National Access Regime, Inquiry Report No 66, Canberra). Pt IIIA provides for the processes by which third parties may obtain access to infrastructure owned by others in the public interest. The Report recommends that Pt IIIA be retained but makes a number of suggestions for its reform, some of which will be briefly considered.

Perils to people and property : valuation practices in a water world

Recent international experiences have reinforced the peril to people and property from rising sea levels and associated water events. The related risks, while perhaps more obvious for properties located in coastal regions, can also impact upon inland properties. These risks are slowly influencing changes to planning practices and attitudes. This paper examines these risks from the perspective of land values and identifies the matters, and processes, that should be adopted in valuation practices.

Intellectual Property – What Went Wrong!

In its simplest form the patent system is designed to encourage the disclosure of innovative thought in exchange for a period of exclusivity in which the grantee of the rights may profit from such knowledge. I will attempt in this paper to show that patentees seeking to enforce their patents in Australia will face great difficulty through a number of potentially fatal pitfalls. I also submit that as a result of the decisions in Australia in reported patent cases in the last ten years, legal advisers should place their clients on notice that if they are trying to enforce their patents they are unlikely to succeed...

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013

This submission relates to the proposed amendment of the Crown Use provisions in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (“the Patents Act”),which are contained in Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 (“The Bill”). Specifically, the submission relates to the method of calculation of the remuneration payable to the patent applicant/owner in circumstances where the Crown exercises its rights under Chapter 17 of the Patents Act.

The Proposed Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Act 2008

Inspired by similar reforms introduced in New Zealand, Canada and the United States, the Commonwealth, with the co-operation of the States, seeks in the Personal Property Securities Bill 2008 (the Bill) to introduce a central repository of recorded information reflecting particular security interests in personal property in Australia. Specifically, the interest recorded is an interest in personal property provided for by a transaction that in substance secures the payment or the performance of an obligation. In addition to providing a notification of the use of the personal property as collateral to secure the payment of monies or the performance of an obligation, the Bill proposes to introduce a regime of prioritising interests in the same collateral. Central to this prioritisation are the concepts of a ‘perfected security interests’and ‘unperfected security interests’. Relevantly, a perfected security interest in collateral has priority over an unperfected security interest in the same collateral. The proposed mechanisms rely on the fundamental integer of personal property, which is defined as any property other than land. Recognising that property may take a tangible as well as an intangible form, the Bill reflects an appreciation of the fact that some property may have a tangible form which may act as collateral, and simultaneously the same property may involve other property, intangible property in the form of intellectual property rights, which in their own right may be the subject of a‘security agreement’. An example set out in the Commentary on the Consultation Draft of the Bill (the Commentary), indicates the practical implications involving certain property which have multiple profiles for the purposes of the Bill. This submission is concerned with the presumptions made in relation to the interphase between tangible property and intangible property arising from the same personal property, as set out in s 30 of the Bill.

A Submission to the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property in Relation to the Issues Paper Relating to the Enforcement of Trade Marks - February 2002

With respect to “shape” marks, there would appear to be a “break”, imposed by the Australian Courts, in the logical conclusion that registration of a shape, which performs a functional purpose, or even further, is indistinguishable from the shape of the item or product, creates a perpetual monopoly in the manufacture of that product.

New regime for property agents and residential property sales in Queensland : Property Occupations Act 2014

This article examines the new Property Occupations Act 2014 (POA) and relevant provisions of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (AFAA) and the impacts for property practitioners. The Acts are due to commence later in 2014 once regulations and relevant forms are drafted. Coinciding with the commencement of the Acts further versions of the REIQ Houses and Land Contract and REIQ Community Title Contract will also be released. The POA introduces changes for licencing of real estate agents, property developers and resident letting agents as well as significant changes for the contract formation process. The AFAA includes the trust account and claim fund provisions of PAMDA, which avoids duplication of these provisions across each of the industry-specific Bills. The most significant change is to the process for making a claim against the fund for the conduct of property agents.

Repeatability or reproducibility in Australian Patent Law

This article considers the extent to which a claimed process must be repeatable or reproducible in order to be patentable according to Australian patent law. It asks whether a process must yield identical or near-identical results each time the process is invoked, or if not, what degree of repeatability is required. The question is relevant when considering, among other things, the patentability of some methods of medical treatment and diagnosis, biotechnology inventions and business methods.

Competition Law in Australia [6th ed.]

Competition Law in Australia, 6th edition provides a comprehensive discussion of the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) dealing with the regulation of competition and markets in Australia. This book covers disparate topics, such as restrictions in horizontal and vertical agreements, horizontal mergers and acquisitions, misuse of market power, and access to services necessary to compete in upstream or downstream markets. However, the unifying theme of this text is that it is not possible to use a formalistic approach in applying the CCA. The decisions of the courts, and the competition authorities responsible for implementing and enforcing the CCA, underline the need to undertake a detailed substantive economic analysis of the effect of the agreement or conduct at issue on competition, efficiency and consumer welfare.