Businesses of all sizes that have intellectual property at their core can benefit from a detailed intellectual property audit to ensure that they protect their biggest intangible asset. Dundas Lawyers® has extensive experience working with businesses of all sizes to identify and protect and their intellectual property (IP) rights in copyright, trademarks, patents, registered designs and trade secrets. Identifying and protecting a business’s intellectual property is the essential first step, maintaining its uniqueness by protecting and enforcing your businesses rights can involve intellectual property litigation.
We understand intellectual property rich businesses because we have started them, acquired them, run them, and sold them. With our background in successful entrepreneurial business and front-line experience in innovation and IP-led ventures, we are perfectly placed to help such businesses to effectively commercialise their IP and scale. We get IP because we’ve lived it. Whether you are looking to leverage your businesses intellectual property or protect it because it been infringed, Dundas Lawyers® has you covered.
Does your business need an intellectual property audit?
An intellectual property audit (IP Audit) is a process that aims to identify and ensure that intellectual property assets (IP Assets) are protected to ensure long term business value. The steps in the process are (generally) as follows:
| Step 1 | Identify IP Assets – (Identification) |
| Step 2 | Assess how IP Assets are Created – (Creation) |
| Step 3 | Assess suitability of protection measures – (IP Protection): – Contractual controls, third party contracts including R&D – Physical controls |
| Step 4 | Understand how the IP Assets are leveraged – (Leverage) |
| Step 5 | Recommend and implement process improvements to protect and leverage IP Assets – (Improve) |
Court decisions involving intellectual property by Dundas Lawyers®
- Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265 – confidential information, and copyright, literary and artistic works;
- Gardner Industries Pty Ltd as trustee for the S M Gardner Family Trust v Telstra Corporation Limited [2021] FCA 294 – website blocking orders, copyright, literary and artistic works, compilations of data, computer code;
- Campbell v Sutherland [2020] FCA 765 (25 May 2020) – trademarks;
- Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 8 (8 January 2020) – patents, confidential information;
- Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1882 (27 November 2018) – disputed discovery in patents matter;
- Multisteps Pty Ltd v Specialty Packaging Aust Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 587 (2 May 2018) – patents and registered designs; and
- Motorcycle Aftermarket Spares Pty Ltd v Tamworth Cycle Tune Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1433 – copyright, literary and artistic works.
Disclaimer
This page contains general commentary only about intellectual property audits. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Why choose Dundas Lawyers® to complete an IP Audit?
Having exerted Blood Sweat and Years® since April 2010 we are the team you want on your side for the long term to act as the ‘bodyguard’ for your business to to protect its intellectual property or to stand up for your rights. Some of the reasons clients choose Dundas Lawyers® include:
- our Uncommon business acumen;
- our Uncommon expertise in transactional, compliance and litigious matters;
- our Uncommon expertise forensic case preparation;
- our Uncommon customer focus;
- the fact that we don’t just know law, we know business!
- how we leverage our Uncommon Nous® to provide client centric solutions.
Considering getting an IP lawyer to complete an IP Audit?
For a confidential, no obligation initial telephone call to find out how we can help your business gain an uncommon advantage by completing an intellectual property audit, please phone our team on either 1300 386 529 or 07 3221 0013.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Complete the form below and we will respond to your enquiry within one (1) business day from the moment you press Submit.
Intellectual property audit enquiry
Australian Intellectual Property Legislation
- Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
- Copyright Regulations 2017 (Cth)
- Designs Act 2003 (Cth)
- Designs Regulations 2004 (Cth)
- Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
- Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth)
- Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth)
- Plant Breeder’s Rights Regulations 1994 (Cth)
- Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
- Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth)
Recent insights about intellectual property audits
-
Changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct
The current Franchising Code of Conduct (Old Code) is scheduled to “sunset” (meaning it will automatically expire unless extended or replaced) on 1 April 2025, with the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Franchising) Regulations 2024 (Cth) (New Regulations) coming into effect on the same date.
-
Use of the © (copyright) symbol
It is something that is often overlooked, however it is considered best practice to add a copyright statement and the little © symbol (Copyright Statement) on any literary or artistic works (Works) that a business publishes and asserts that it owns. Under Australian law, the “material form” of all original Works is automatically protected by…
-
IP Australia guidelines for trade mark classification
There has been a surge in trade mark applications in the digital space, notably concerning virtual goods, virtual environments such as the metaverse, NFTs, and the blockchain according to observations made by IP Australia. This article discusses the things to consider when selecting the classification(s) for virtual goods and services when filing an application for…
-
Intellectual property assignments and the right to sue
This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.
-
IP contracts now subject to restrictive trade practice provisions
Learn how the repeal of Section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) affects businesses licensing or assigning intellectual property (IP) rights and the penalties associated with a breach with this comprehensive guide.
-
What is a certification trade mark?
Learn about the differences between certification marks and standard trade marks, the complex process of obtaining one, the certification rules, and more in this comprehensive article. Discover why certification marks are important and how they can benefit your business.
-
The importance of using your trade mark
Protect your valuable intellectual property asset – your trade mark – by learning how to use it effectively and prove its use. Get the full details in this blog post.
Recent Federal Court decisions regarding intellectual property audits
-
Harlech Enterprises Pty Ltd v Beno Excavations Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 639
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant previously worked for respondent and had access to respondent’s confidential information / intellectual property – where applicant seeks redactions to discovered documents – where parties are competing trade rivals – Recent cases about confidential information Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0639For more information, see the original judgement.
-
Bing! Software Pty Ltd v Bing Technologies Pty Limited (No 4) [2024] FCA 607
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to set aside order under r 39.05(f) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 – Where order entered in favour of the applicant – Where the applicant is no longer trading – Where the trademark is no longer registered – Where no benefit derived from the order – Where all parties…
-
Vitaco Health IP Pty Ltd v AFI Cosmetic Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 598
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment pursuant to r 5.23(2)(c) and/or (d) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where the respondents have failed to comply with court orders and failed to appear – allegations of trade mark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off – where marks were used by…
