Current Law Journal Content
Washington & Lee Law School
  Current Law Journal Content
                  an index to legal periodicals
 


  Australian Intellectual Property Journal   (Australia)
  Volume 21, Number 2, June 2010
  homepage                   other issues
 
  • EDITORIAL
        p.55                                                                                        +cite    

  • TOPICS OF INTEREST
  • UTS speaks: National content network — Access
        p.56                                                                                        +cite    

  • ARTICLES
  • The interlocutory injunction dilemma in patent infringement and invalidity disputes
        Charles Lawson
        p.73                                                                                        +cite        
        Interlocutory injunctions pose a dilemma for patent law and practice as they require a court to assess the parties' submissions and make decisions before all the issues are thoroughly argued. While the relevant legal principles are settled, there remains some uncertainty for intellectual property owners (or licensees or assignees) maintaining their statutory privileges and protecting their broader commercial interests in exploiting their privileges (such as market share, brand, good will, reputation etc). This article examines interlocutory injunctions where there is both an alleged infringement of a Patents Act 1990 (Cth) "standard patent" and a challenge to patent invalidity, to explore the potential of interlocutory injunctions as a tool to promote, encourage and coerce patent owners to provide access to, and disseminate, their patent protected products, method and processes while respecting core exclusive rights.
  • Falling between two stools: Presumptions under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
        Luke Pallaras
        p.100                                                                                      +cite        
        Until recently, the presumptions in Pt V Div 4 of the Copyright Act have remained somewhat neglected: they have seldom been invoked and have rarely been the subject of controversy. However, the recent Federal Court of Australia decision of Telstra v Phone Directories invites a reconsideration of the operation of, and the alms underlying, these presumptions. Gordon J's brief analysis of the presumptions in this case contains a series of questionable propositions. In response, this article draws upon the academic literature relating to presumptions generally and the legislative history of the Pt V Div 4 presumptions to argue that Gordon J's analysis of these issues exhibits a number of flaws. In doing so, the article seeks to clarify the correct approach to applying these presumptions and suggests a number of approaches to overcoming the confusion caused by their current drafting.