July 2015


July 30, 2015 3:15 PM | Posted by Rebecca Dutkowski | Permalink
Old-style 'omnibus claims' are often overlooked in patent infringement disputes. The usual assumption is that these claims are very narrow in scope, and are limited to the  specific examples of the invention shown in the patent. Therefore, if a competing product doesn't infringe any of the other claims, it is presumed not to infringe the narrower omnibus claim. However, in a recent decision of the Federal Court (Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd v Glaxosmithkline Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2015] FCA 486 (20 May 2015)) Justice Rares turned this reasoning on its head. He found that  a syringe of Glaxosmithkline (GSK) used for the  administration of Children's Panadol infringed Reckitt's patent, but only in respect of the omnibus claim. In effect, the omnibus claim was found to be the broadest claim of the patent, covering the any syringe which took "the substance" of the syringe described in Reckitt's patent. read more
July 24, 2015 3:00 PM | Posted by Paul Kallenbach & Leah Mooney | Permalink
Avid Dating Life Inc (ADL), the company behind the US-based Ashley Madison online (extramarital) dating service, are currently being held to ransom by a hacker known by the pseudonym "the Impact Team" ... read more
July 22, 2015 9:57 AM | Posted by Rebecca Bedford | Permalink

It is not uncommon for parties to contract negotiations to agree to many of the terms while using the phrase 'subject to the execution of the contract' (or something similar).

However, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland highlights that the mere use of such a phrase will not of itself mean that a contract has not been formed, despite no formal execution.  The formation of a contract requires an analysis of the totality of the conduct of the parties to objectively determine the intention of the parties to be bound.

read more