*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n This Special Issue of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal<\/em>\u00c2\u00a0(Volume 31 Part 4) entitled: Unlocking the Interface between IP and the Right to Repair contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editor: Dianne Nicol<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Protection of Australian Regional Names as Food Geographical Indications <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c South Australian Case Study: Part 2 <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Dr Paula Caroline Zito<\/p>\n This is the second of a two-part article series that reports and explains findings from a case study conducted in the South Australian regions of Barossa Valley and Adelaide Hills. The case study explored whether regional food producers based in those regions consider that Australia should implement a dedicated food Geographical Indications (GI) framework. The first article in the series reported the key findings made from the South Australian case study. This article expands on some of those key findings, providing valuable explanation about how a food GI framework can be tailored to accommodate Australian food industry needs. This information is especially significant at this time given the Australian government\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s public consultation on a possible new GI right that could provide GI protection to goods other than wines and spirits. This article reports on the views and opinions of South Australian food producers relevant to the Australian government\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s current consideration of a possible new GI right and the implementation of an Australian food GI framework. It provides relevant information for the current policy regarding the connection between product and place, including practical criteria that should be incorporated into an Australian food GI framework to ensure that Australian food GIs are only used on food labels where the food product is clearly connected to the GI place claimed.<\/p>\n Click here to access this article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Trade Secrets: Promoting Innovation in Biosimilars <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Teddy Henriksen<\/p>\n Trade secrets are generally considered as stifling innovation, including the innovation of biosimilars. This article considers the alternative and suggests that trade secrets over biologics not only promote, but actually force biosimilar innovation. Specifically, trade secrets encourage biosimilars to innovate in two areas: process design and analytical science. Both areas of innovation are related to the unique nature of biologics and biosimilars and their molecular size, complexity and heterogeneity. However, it is not enough to say that the secret nature of originator manufacturing processes promotes innovation. This article will show that biosimilars may not only innovate in the sense of allowing cumulative innovation in analytical techniques for biopharmaceutical characterisation, but originator trade secrets also promote a different kind of innovation in biosimilar development processes: simultaneous innovation.<\/p>\n Click here to access this article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n The Inevitable Actors: An Analysis of Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Recent Anti-piracy Website Blocking Laws, Their Balancing of Rights and Overall Effectiveness<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Peter Carstairs<\/p>\n Following the High Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd <\/em>and walking in the footsteps of countries such as the United Kingdom, in 2015 Australia introduced a website blocking injunction regime into the Copyright Act. The regime, which was expanded in 2018, allows an injunction to be brought against a carriage service provider or a search engine provider to block access to an overseas website whose \u00e2\u20ac\u0153primary purpose\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153primary effect\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is the infringement or facilitation of infringement of copyright. The regime has received criticism that it may amount to a form of censorship and a restriction on the freedom to access information, particularly where the website comprises both infringing and non-infringing content. This article argues, however, that these risks are low, that the regime successfully balances rights when dealing with the very real issue of online piracy, and could potentially be expanded to include other intermediaries.<\/p>\n Click here to access this article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU – AIPJ Vol 31 No 4 Contents<\/a> or here:\u00c2\u00a0 New Westlaw AU -\u00c2\u00a0AIPJ Vol 31 No 4 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n