Read our latest updates & insights

On 18 June 2024, Justice Burley delivered a decision regarding documentary discovery in the long running dispute between Pfizer (Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer Australia) and four of its competitors over AU2005280034 for the “Production of polypeptides” (the Pfizer Patent).

On 18 June 2024, Justice Burley delivered a decision regarding documentary discovery in the long running dispute between Pfizer (Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer Australia) and four of its competitors over AU2005280034 for the “Production of polypeptides” (the Pfizer Patent).

On 18 June 2024, Justice Burley delivered a decision regarding documentary discovery in the long running dispute between Pfizer (Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer Australia) and four of its competitors over AU2005280034 for the “Production of polypeptides” (the Pfizer Patent).

On 18 June 2024, Justice Burley delivered a decision regarding documentary discovery in the long running dispute between Pfizer (Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer Australia) and four of its competitors over AU2005280034 for the “Production of polypeptides” (the Pfizer Patent).

The Federal Court has continued its run of decisions on contested costs orders. The cost of litigating patent disputes in the Federal Court is high. To maximise the costs recovered, parties are issuing Notices of Offer (pursuant to the Federal Court Rules) and Calderbank letters. These are designed to put the other party at risk of an indemnity costs order should they reject the offer and the first party ultimately receives a more favourable judgment. Indemnity costs orders enable a successful party to claw back up to 100% of their legal costs, whereas a party/party costs order typically only provides a successful party with around 60% of their actual legal costs. So, significant sums of money can be at stake as a result of an effective or ineffective Notice of Offer or Caldberank letter.

The battle to claim the earliest valid patent rights to CRISPR gene-editing technology has been fought around the world. In Australia, the most protracted dispute…

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.

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.