Intellectual Property and IT Insights

15 December 2006

Welcome to the December edition of Clayton Utz Intellectual Property & IT Insights, in which we’ll look at what happens when you try to find your online customers’ location.

We’ll also look at

  • the latest developments in stopping cracking devices
  • changes to trade mark laws - will they make it easier to protect your marks?
  • whether your invention must have a physical effect to be patentable
  • your IP and disclosure requirements to the ASX; and
  • infringing designs - is it fraudulent imitation if it’s not obvious?

So where the bloody hell are you online?

By Paul Clarke and Cameron Gascoyne.

Can geo-identification technology help online businesses avoid legal entanglements across the globe? Paul Clarke and Cameron Gascoyne look at what it can - and can’t - do to reduce your legal risk.

Bad news for Google News

By Julia Dreosti.

Caching and deeplinking are again an issue with Google News being sued in Europe. What is the position for Australians, asks Julia Hoffmann.

It’s good governance - Don't overstate the commercial significance of your IP

By Cynthia Sargent and Claire MacMillan.

While a change in the status of IP, such as the grant of a patent, might be expected to have a material effect on the price of a company's shares, a recent decision makes it clear that announcing the grant of a patent which overstates its commercial significance contravenes the Corporations Act, as Cynthia Sargent and Claire MacMillan explain.

Opposing or revoking a trade mark - important changes

By Peter Knight.

A raft of important changes have been made to trade mark law which will benefit trade mark owners, says Peter Knight.

Business method patents - does your invention have a physical effect or consequence?

By Nicholas Tyacke and Timothy Webb.

Nicholas Tyacke and Timothy Webb delve into the problem of patenting business methods and examine a recent decision which clears up some questions - and poses new ones.

Infringing a design: it might not be obvious, but it could be fraudulent

By Clare Doneley.

You think your design has been infringed. How will a court determine that? And will it find there’s been fraudulent imitation when there’s been no obvious imitation? Clare Doneley looks to a recent case for some answers.

Technological protection measures and circumvention devices - will new laws solve the problem?

By Peter Knight.

The laws preventing the circumvention of technological protection measures failed in their first big test, so they’re being rewritten. Peter Knight examines the proposals and finds them flawed.
For more information, contact...
Email: Ian Bloemendal, Partner
Tel: +61 7 3292 7217
Email: Jeremy Charlston, Consultant
Tel: +61 7 3292 7028
Email: Simon Newcomb, Partner
Tel: +61 7 3292 7243
Email: John Collins, Partner
Tel: +61 2 9353 4119
Email: Robert Cutler, Partner
Tel: +61 2 9353 4104
Email: Mary Still, Partner
Tel: +61 2 9353 4149
Email: Scott Crabb, Partner
Tel: +61 8 9426 8430
Email: Paul Fitzpatrick, Partner in Charge
Tel: +61 8 9426 8416
Email: Chris McLeod, Partner
Tel: +61 3 9286 6214
Email: Margaret Michaels, Partner
Tel: +61 8 8943 2517
Email: Alexandra Wedutenko, Partner in Charge
Tel: +61 2 6279 4008