*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
NB: Please note that Legal Online will be decommissioned on 31 December 2013. From now on, all updates will include links for Westlaw AU only (with the exception of the Journals available on Checkpoint, which will have an extra PDF). For further information, please click here.
The latest issue of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal (Volume 24 Part 2) contains the following material:
Understanding the “safe harbour”: The prohibition on engaging in legal practice and its application to patent and trade marks attorneys in Australia – Francesca Bartlett and Robert Burrell
This article looks at how the work of patent and trade marks attorneys relates to the exclusive right to engage in legal practice conferred on solicitors and barristers, taking as its starting point the proposed national legal profession reforms. It argues that more needs to be done to clarify the safe harbour that attorneys enjoy from the prohibition on engaging in legal practice and that there are good reasons for framing such a safe harbour in generous terms.
This article addresses the potential of compulsory licensing and like arrangements under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) for pharmaceuticals that are not made available in Australia, or available at such a high price that they are effectively unavailable. The analysis shows that the existing compulsory licensing and like arrangements (the general third party non-voluntary licensing, government (Crown) use and government acquisition) appear to be credible possibilities for accessing patented pharmaceuticals, albeit there remain significant uncertainties about their deployment. The article concludes that compulsory licensing and like arrangements need to be a clear and present threat to patent holders to encourage them to voluntarily work their patents or license them (in Australia) on reasonable terms and conditions.
The American shop rights doctrine and the inventions of Australian employees – Robert F Considine
Innovative employees provide insights and creative energies that can drive corporate prosperity. However, innovative employees can soon become cunning competitors when they leave their employer. The shop right provides American employers with a restricted licence to use an employee’s invention if it was reduced to practice with the employer’s resources and knowledge. However, the Americans have been imprecise in defining the doctrinal basis of the shop right, with equity and fairness, equitable estoppel or implied licence having been held as valid doctrinal bases in the Supreme Court. Shop rights have not arisen in Australian cases such as University of Western Australia v Gray (2009) 179 FCR 346. This article analyses the doctrinal basis of the shop right, whether a pseudo shop right could be founded on existing Australian intellectual property law and, if so, the implications that would have had on selected Australian cases.
For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: WAU – AIPJ Vol 24 Pt 2 Contents.