Introduction to patent revocation

In legal proceedings involving the alleged infringement of a patent, it’s common for the respondent to go on the offensive and attempt to convince the Court that the said patent is invalid.  If proven, it necessarily follows there can be no infringement.  There is no one section of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act) that specifically deals with invalidity.  In effect invalidity is established by proving that the requirements of validity set out in section 18 of the Patents Act are not made out on the patent in question, or that there are other grounds (such as sections 40 and 138) which the patent does not comply with. [Read more…]

Patents, grace periods and revocation – how does it all work?

The registration of a patent entitles the owner to protection of their invention under the provisions of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act).  In order to qualify for these protections, the invention must pass the tests for patentability set out in the Act.  Part of these tests require that the invention must be new, with the Act distinguishing between patents based on their ‘inventiveness’ or ‘newness’; between standard patents and innovation patents.  Regardless of this distinction, a patent will not be granted where the invention is known to the public through prior use or disclosure of the invention.  In this article, we consider the implication of disclosure of an invention prior to application and the effect of the ‘grace periods’ on revocation. [Read more…]

Dundas Lawyers
Street Address Suite 12, Level 9, 320 Adelaide Street Brisbane QLD 4001

Tel: 07 3221 0013

Send this to a friend