Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / Australia / inventive step / P3 / patents / Australia lowers the bar

Australia lowers the bar

- , , ,

As reported by the IPKat's friend and antipodean IP lawyer Duncan Bucknell, the Australian High Court has made the task of proving the obviousness of a patented invention more difficult. According to the Court, the previous 'threshold test' is a myth, and the merest scintilla of invention is all that is required to establish an inventive step sufficient to get and keep an Australian patent. The Court also compares the standard European problem-solution approach and takes the view that, while this may be useful, it is not determinative of obviousness under Australian law.

Right: If an Australian were to invent an animal, they couldn't get much less obvious than this.

For more information on the case, the IPKat recommends his readers to Duncan's site.

More Australian inventions here, here and here.
Australia lowers the bar Australia lowers the bar Reviewed by David Pearce on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousWednesday, 30 May 2007 at 14:10:00 GMT+1

    The animal depicted here might not be obvious, but its connection to my favorite blawg is. It's a Platy-pus from the Katty-puss.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.