I've received a cease and desist letter alleging that I'm infringing someone's patent. What should I do?The first thing is "Don't panic!". While a letter like this should be taken very seriously the fact is that simply because the allegation has been made doesn't mean...

QUESTION[vc_separator type="small" position="left"]We would like to file a convention patent application in Australia based on US provisional patent application No. 61/XYZ filed on March 22, 2010.However, it will be necessary to add additional examples in order to support the scope of the claims. In the...

Assuming that you've thought of something that's new and inventive, do you have actually have an "invention" or is it rather the case that you merely have "a new idea"?Although an invention may be very broadly claimed in a patent, it remains the case that patents...

Myth No. 1. Patents aren't worth the trouble because patent litigation is very expensive.This is an often used, but irrational, excuse for the putting of heads in the sand when it comes to patents. It's a bit like not wanting to buy a house because...

I'm very pleased to announce that Andy Mukherji has joined MBIP. Andy is a registered Australian and New Zealand patent attorney with a PhD in chemical engineering and a science degree in physics.Andy's an excellent communicator and, I'm discovering, has a highly developed sense...

The Research Affiliates decision that was handed down last November (2014) by the court of Appeal of the Federal Court has been much on my mind lately.  In the last few weeks I've attended two seminars where speakers made mention of the case.  In the first seminar the speaker continually mixed "manner of manufacture" and "inventive step" concepts, contrary to the judgment in RA and (also contrary to Justice Gummow's teachings in Doric) and even more fundamentally, contrary to the provisions of the Patents Act!In the second seminar the speaker advised us that the Australian court had approved the methodology set out in the US Supreme court for determining patent eligible / non-eligible claims, which I don't think is correct either.  Neither speaker pointed out that toward the end of the Research Affiliates decision there is a very helpful list of "does" and "don'ts" when drafting IT related patent specifications. 
You can only get a valid patent if your invention is truly "novel", i.e. new.  Apart from being novel the invention must also be inventive, for a standard patent or at least innovative, for an innovation patent.Without getting too far off track I'll just point out that at present ACIP (i.e. the Advisory Council for Intellectual Property) is investigating whether or not the innovation patent system is working properly.  Depending on the outcome of their investigations It could be that the innovation patent system will be either abolished or altered so that the test for "innovative" step is changed to the same test for "inventive step" that applies to standard patents.
About a month ago I had just got home and was in the kitchen talking to Megan when my mobile phone rang.  It was an inventor (I'll call him "Jack") calling from Los Angeles in California. Jack wanted to extend his US patent application coverage to Australia. He said, "Hi Michael, I've got a patent application filed with the USPTO and I want to lodge in Australia. What's the deal for doing that?".It was a great surprise to hear his US accent coming over the line.  Usually when I do work for clients in the USA, or other countries, it comes in as an email from their attorney.  Not as a direct phone call from the applicant / inventor.  My mobile phone number is on the contact page of my website so people can do exactly what Jack had done and simply give me a call.
Translate »