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...

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.

From Kafka to KAFTA: Intellectual property, and the Korea-Australia free trade agreement

This paper provides a critical examination of the intellectual property sections of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. Chapter 13 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 deals with the subject of intellectual property law. The Chapter covers such topics as the purposes and objectives of intellectual property law; copyright law; trade mark law; patent law; and intellectual property enforcement. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament highlighted the controversy surrounding this chapter of the agreement: The intellectual property rights chapter of KAFTA has drawn considerable attention from academics and stakeholders regarding the proposed need for changes to Australian intellectual property law and the inclusion of intellectual property in the definition of investment with regard to the investor-state dispute mechanism. Other concerns raised with the Committee include the prescriptive nature of the chapter, the lack of recognition of the broader public interests of intellectual property rights, and possible changes to fair use provisions. Article 13.1.1 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 provides that: ‘Each Party recognises the importance of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, while ensuring that measures to enforce those rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.’ This is an unsatisfactory description of the objectives and purposes of intellectual property law in both Australia and Korea. There is a failure to properly consider the range of public purposes served by intellectual property law – such as providing for access to knowledge, promoting competition and innovation, protecting consumer rights, and allowing for the protection of public health, food security, and the environment. Such a statement of principles and objectives detracts from the declaration in the TRIPS Agreement 1994 of the public interest objectives to be served by intellectual property. Chapter 11 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 is an investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This chapter is highly controversial – given the international debate over investor-state dispute settlement; the Australian context for the debate; and the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. In April 2014, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released a report on Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The overall figures are staggering. UNCTAD reports a significant growth in investment-state dispute settlement, across a wide array of different fields of public regulation. Given the broad definition of investment, intellectual property owners will be able to use the investor-state dispute settlement regime in the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. This will have significant implications for all the various disciplines of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, and patent law.

The Australia-Chile free trade agreement 2008: Intellectual property and development. A submission to the Joint Standing Committee on treaties

A submission to the Joint Standing Committee on treaties

Owning the new economy: A guide to intellectual property management for Australia's clean technology sector

Australia's history of developing and managing the intellectual property rights of domestic innovations is – at best – mixed. The relevant immaturity of Australia's public sector commercialisation infrastructure has, over recent decades, been the subject of both stinging academic commentary and not insubstantial juridical disbelief. That said, improvements have been observed, and increasingly, private sector involvement in public sector innovation has allowed for a deepening refinement of domestic approaches to IP retention and ongoing management. Rather than a bare critique of Australia's IP management track-record, or a call for specific law reform, this manual engages at a more practical level some of the foundational questions that ought be asked by entities involved in the 'cleantech' industries. Beginning simply at what is IP and why it matters, this manual examines the models of IP management available to market participants around the world. The process of IP management is defined and assessed through a commercial lens; assessing the 'pros' and 'cons' of each management choice with a view to equipping the reader to determine which approach may be best adapted to their given clean tech project. The manual concludes with a brief survey of alternative models of Intellectual Property management, including relevant examples from overseas and prominent suggestions arising out of the academic discourse. It appears inevitable that the global warming challenge will prompt specific legislative, regulatory and multi-lateral responses by nation states, however, the ultimate form of any such response remains a highly contested political and social issue. Accordingly, the structure of this manual, and the discussion points raised herein, seek introduce the reader to some of the more contentious debates occurring around the world at the intersection between IP and climate change.

Report to the Government 2.0 Taskforce : Project 4 - Copyright Law and Intellectual Property

This report is the primary output of Project 4: Copyright and Intellectual Property, the aim of which was to produce a report considering how greater access to and use of government information could be achieved within the scope of the current copyright law. In our submission for Project 4, we undertook to address: •the policy rationales underlying copyright and how they apply in the context of materials owned, held and used by government; • the recommendations of the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) in its 2005 report on Crown copyright; • the legislative and regulatory barriers to information sharing in key domains, including where legal impediments such as copyright have been relied upon (whether rightly or wrongly) to justify a refusal to provide access to government data; • copyright licensing models appropriate to government materials and examples of licensing initiatives in Australia and other relevant jurisdictions; and • issues specific to the galleries, libraries, archives and museums (“GLAM”) sector, including management of copyright in legacy materials and “orphan” works. In addressing these areas, we analysed the submissions received in response to the Government 2.0 Taskforce Issues Paper, consulted with members of the Task Force as well as several key stakeholders and considered the comments posted on the Task Force’s blog. This Project Report sets out our findings on the above issues. It puts forward recommendations for consideration by the Government 2.0 Task Force on steps that can be taken to ensure that copyright and intellectual property promote access to and use of government information.

Intellectual property : designing 4 success. Safeguarding your innovations - rights, obligations and opportunities in creating intellectual property by design

Design talks LOUDLY!!! Is a series of interactive presentations exploring issues and opportunities involving professional design. --------------- These seminars are organised by the Industrial Design Network Queensland (IDnetQLD) in coordination with the Design Institute of Australia (DIA). This event was held at the State Library of Queensland (SLQ) with invited public presentations by a panel of industry experts from the Australian Government – IP Australia. --------------- The first seminar "Intellectual Property : designing 4 success" highlighted to design professionals how the various forms of Intellectual Property interact, what protections and pitfalls exist, and how these impact upon the work and responsibilities of designers. The overlaps, gaps and in congruencies in the various IP protection systems were highlighted by the expert line-up of speakers. --------------- The underlying message is that a clear understanding of all IP types is necessary in order to gain the best advantage from IP protection and therefore eliminate potential IP ownership issues before they become a problem.

Intellectual Property and Joint Ventures

Following upon the success of the 2nd edition published in 2005, this new edition not only updates its predecessor but also adds considerable new material in consequences of changes in the law generally and commercial approaches to financing joint ventures in particular. Of special note are the following: Financing of Joint Ventures has been completely re-written with considerable additions to take account of the new legislative regimes such as the Personal Property Securities, the impact of climate change legislation, specifically carbon pricing with additional material on structuring generally and particularly in relation to large joint ventures with governments through Public Private Partnerships. A new Chapter called Resources Joint Ventures undertakes a thorough analysis of a typical resources joint venture and is heavily cross referenced into the chapter on Default which has also been updated. International Joint Ventures now includes additional material on structuring and dispute resolution. Joint Ventures and the Competition and Consumer Act has been substantially re-written to take account of 2009 legislative amendments on cartel conduct, and the impact of changes wrought by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. All other chapters and material has been updated to accommodate other legislative changes and new case law over the seven years since the last edition.

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, 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?

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.

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.

Inventing life: Intellectual property and the new biology

In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected: 'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.' The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreover, it was hoped that the New Biology could lead to a better understanding of individual health: ‘The New Biology can accelerate fundamental understanding of the systems that underlie health and the development of the tools and technologies that will in turn lead to more efficient approaches to developing therapeutics and enabling individualized, predictive medicine.’ Biological research has certainly been changing direction in response to changing societal problems. Over the last decade, increasing awareness of the impacts of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels can be seen to have generated investment in fields such as biofuels, climate-ready crops and storage of agricultural genetic resources. In considering biotechnology’s role in the twenty-first century, biological future-predictor Carlson’s firm Biodesic states: ‘The problems the world faces today – ecosystem responses to global warming, geriatric care in the developed world or infectious diseases in the developing world, the efficient production of more goods using less energy and fewer raw materials – all depend on understanding and then applying biology as a technology.’ This collection considers the roles of intellectual property law in regulating emerging technologies in the biological sciences. Stephen Hilgartner comments that patent law plays a significant part in social negotiations about the shape of emerging technological systems or artefacts: 'Emerging technology – especially in such hotbeds of change as the life sciences, information technology, biomedicine, and nanotechnology – became a site of contention where competing groups pursued incompatible normative visions. Indeed, as people recognized that questions about the shape of technological systems were nothing less than questions about the future shape of societies, science and technology achieved central significance in contemporary democracies. In this context, states face ongoing difficulties trying to mediate these tensions and establish mechanisms for addressing problems of representation and participation in the sociopolitical process that shapes emerging technology.' The introduction to the collection will provide a thumbnail, comparative overview of recent developments in intellectual property and biotechnology – as a foundation to the collection. Section I of this introduction considers recent developments in United States patent law, policy and practice with respect to biotechnology – in particular, highlighting the Myriad Genetics dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos. Section II considers the cross-currents in Canadian jurisprudence in intellectual property and biotechnology. Section III surveys developments in the European Union – and the interpretation of the European Biotechnology Directive. Section IV focuses upon Australia and New Zealand, and considers the policy responses to the controversy of Genetic Technologies Limited’s patents in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. Section V outlines the parts of the collection and the contents of the chapters.