Chris Vindurampulle

CQMS has successfully opposed ESCO Group’s (ESCO) patent application AU 2018201726 (‘726) on the grounds of lack of support and sufficiency. We previously reported on an opposition between the same parties for a related patent family member AU 2018201710 (‘710). As with that case, the Delegate in the present opposition exercised his authority under section 60(3) of the Patents Act 1990 and raised the additional opposition ground of inutility, which was not asserted by CQMS.

R F Industries Pty Ltd v Mine Site Technologies Pty Ltd [2024] APO 16 provides a good example of the usefulness of re-examination and opposition to challenge a granted patent.

On 8 March 2024, Justice Burley of the Federal Court issued the latest in a series of decisions relating to the patent-eligibility of Aristocrat’s electronic gaming machine (EGM) patents. Unfortunately it does not resolve the legal uncertainty created by the High Court’s split decision on the matter in 2022. What next?

The Federal Court’s second patent decision of 2024 is a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court relating to one of several long-running patent disputes in the field of carpark overstay detection.   In March 2023, Justice Besanko upheld the validity of two patents owned by Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd (VMS), both entitled ‘Method, apparatus and system for parking overstay detection’. 

In the first Federal Court patent decision handed down in 2024, MSA 4×4 Accessories Pty Ltd failed to establish infringement by Clearview Towing Mirrors Pty Ltd of MSA’s patent to a mountable storage device, commonly used in off-road and trade vehicles. 

Zoetis Services LLC opposed two Australian patent applications (one standard and one innovation patent application) in the name of Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH. The applications claim a method of treating heart failure due to asymptomatic myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) in a patient (including a dog) by administering pimobendan (also known as Vetmedin®).

In this patent infringement/validity dispute, Hanwha failed to establish that REC infringed its “old Act” Australian patent No 2008323025, and its dependant ACL claims were dismissed. 

In this patent infringement/validity dispute, Hanwha failed to establish that REC infringed its “old Act” Australian patent No 2008323025, and its dependant ACL claims were dismissed.