{"id":2526,"date":"2011-07-15T16:43:56","date_gmt":"2011-07-15T06:43:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=2526"},"modified":"2011-07-15T16:43:56","modified_gmt":"2011-07-15T06:43:56","slug":"australian-intellectual-property-journal-update-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2011\/07\/15\/australian-intellectual-property-journal-update-march-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Intellectual Property Journal update: March 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The latest issue of the <em>Australian\u00c2\u00a0Intellectual Property\u00c2\u00a0Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a022 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultDetailed.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1&amp;contentSourceHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1\/articles\/3_E\/fulltext&amp;tocType=fullText&amp;hitListPageContext=http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultSummary.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1___tocType=fullText___sortBy=publicationYear\/articleDate&amp;searchId=6&amp;hit=1&amp;hits=5&amp;articleType=fulltext&amp;freeText=&amp;titleCode=E\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Editorial<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultDetailed.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1&amp;contentSourceHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1\/articles\/4\/fulltext&amp;tocType=fullText&amp;hitListPageContext=http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultSummary.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1___tocType=fullText___sortBy=publicationYear\/articleDate&amp;searchId=6&amp;hit=2&amp;hits=5&amp;articleType=fulltext&amp;freeText=&amp;titleCode=ToI\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Topics of Interest<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Jessica Roth<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>E &amp; J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd: A missed opportunity?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Articles<\/h3>\n<p><em><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultDetailed.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1&amp;contentSourceHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1\/articles\/10\/fulltext&amp;tocType=fullText&amp;hitListPageContext=http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultSummary.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1___tocType=fullText___sortBy=publicationYear\/articleDate&amp;searchId=6&amp;hit=3&amp;hits=5&amp;articleType=fulltext&amp;freeText=&amp;titleCode=DdDoaaopfpi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Decisions, decisions: Damages or an account of profits for patent infringement? <\/a><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Gavin Adkins<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">This article provides a detailed review of the Australian position with respect to monetary remedies for patent infringement. In doing so, occasional reference is made to how corresponding issues have been dealt with in the UK, US and Canada, but the primary focus is on the few decided Australian cases, namely <em>Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd <\/em>(2001) 52 IPR 305; <em>Pearce v Paul Kingston Pty Ltd <\/em>(1992) 25 IPR 591; <em>Unilin Beeher BV v Huili Building Materials Pty Ltd and Others <\/em>(No 2) (2007) 74 IPR 345 and <em>Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corporation Pty Ltd <\/em>(1992) 179 CLR 101, and their practical implications for patent infringement litigants.<\/p>\n<p>To purchase this article, complete the <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/subscribe-or-purchase\/individual-article-sale\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to <a href=\"mailto:tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com\">tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><em><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultDetailed.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1&amp;contentSourceHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1\/articles\/29\/fulltext&amp;tocType=fullText&amp;hitListPageContext=http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultSummary.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1___tocType=fullText___sortBy=publicationYear\/articleDate&amp;searchId=6&amp;hit=4&amp;hits=5&amp;articleType=fulltext&amp;freeText=&amp;titleCode=CicgwiApITftCta\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Copyright in computer-generated work in Australia post-IceTV: Time for the Commonwealth to act<\/a> <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Cameron Andrews<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">This article argues that the Commonwealth should amend the <em>Copyright Act 1968 <\/em>(Cth) to remedy the gap in protection for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153authorless\u00e2\u20ac\u009d computer-generated work now fully exposed by the High Court of Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision in <em>IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Pty Ltd <\/em>(2009) 239 CLR 458 and its subsequent application by the Federal Court. It notes this \u00e2\u20ac\u0153gap\u00e2\u20ac\u009d means there is no effective legal protection for a diverse range of material which might be regarded as fundamental to Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Digital Economy\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, including advanced forms of multi-layered software, sophisticated databases, mapping services, and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153collaborative works\u00e2\u20ac\u009d involving many people interacting via computer networks. The evolution of authorship as a concept in copyright law, previous inquiries into computer-generated work, and the protection available in comparable jurisdictions are considered in support of the conclusion that the time for Commonwealth action on this issue has now come.<\/p>\n<p>To purchase this article, complete the <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/subscribe-or-purchase\/individual-article-sale\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to <a href=\"mailto:tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com\">tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultDetailed.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1&amp;contentSourceHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1\/articles\/46\/fulltext&amp;tocType=fullText&amp;hitListPageContext=http:\/\/legalonline.thomson.com.au\/jour\/resultSummary.jsp?curRequestedHref=journals\/AIPJ\/volumes\/22\/parts\/1___tocType=fullText___sortBy=publicationYear\/articleDate&amp;searchId=6&amp;hit=5&amp;hits=5&amp;articleType=fulltext&amp;freeText=&amp;titleCode=Br\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Book review<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <em>Janice Luck<\/em><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Australian Trade Mark Law <\/em>by Robert Burrell and Michael Handler<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0<a rel=\"attachment wp-att-2533\" href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2011\/07\/15\/australian-intellectual-property-journal-update-march-2011\/aipj-vol-22-no-1-mar-11-contents\/\">AIPJ Vol 22 Pt 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The first part of Volume 22 of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal includes articles on monetary remedies for patent infringement and copyright in computer-generated work in Australia. There is also a book review and a Topic of Interest about E &amp; J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[192,39],"tags":[191,797,48,798,165,799,800,801,802,803,804,805],"class_list":["post-2526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australian-intellectual-property-journal","category-update-summaries","tag-aipj","tag-australian-trade-mark-law","tag-book-review","tag-cameron-andrews","tag-copyright","tag-copyright-act-1968-cth","tag-gavin-adkins","tag-icetv","tag-icetv-pty-ltd-v-nine-network-pty-ltd","tag-janice-luck","tag-jessica-roth","tag-patent-infringement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2526","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}