Not the first time Apple Inc has been featured in this blog, and by the looks of things, certainly not the last.

Hearings have begun for what is likely to be a protracted legal battle between the “Big Movie Studios” and not-so-small-fish in the local ISP pond, iiNet. A massive 34 plaintiff parties are accusing Australia’s third largest internet service provider of authorising copyright infringement.

The University of Western Australia’s challenge for ownership rights to Dr Bruce Gray’s microsphere inventions used in the treatment of cancer may have come to an end with the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissing the University’s appeal earlier this month.

It seems funny that a company that calls itself “Larrikin Music” should be taking serious court action over riffs allegedly copied from a classic Australian song about a native bird famous for its warbly laugh - but that said, judgment is set down for delivery tomorrow in the court of Justice Jacobson, who must decide whether Australian band Men at Work reproduced a “substantial part” of that famous Australian children’s song, Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree for its 1981 pub-anthem Down Under.

You may recall our blog entry last year on cosmetics giant L’Oreal and their campaign against counterfeit products sold on eBay. Well it looks like the French courts have dealt another blow to that campaign following a decision earlier this month dismissing L’Oreal’s trade mark infringement action against the online auctioneer.

Federal Court Practice Note No 30: Fast Track Directions was recently issued, heralding the introduction of the “Fast Track” litigation process to all Federal Courts Australia-wide.

The saga continues as another famous brand accuses eBay of selling counterfeit goods.

In what is being described as a win (of sorts) for the online auction giant, eBay, a US District Court judge has gone against the grain of recent French court decisions and has found that eBay is not responsible for counterfeit goods being sold through its online auction websites. In a similar vein to the recent French decisions regarding fake Hermes handbags, Louis Vuitton goods and Christian Dior perfumery being sold on eBay, Tiffany (NJ) Inc. and Tiffany and Company argued that eBay had an obligation to investigate and control the illegal activities of people selling counterfeit Tiffany products through its auction sites. But US Disctrict Court Judge Sullivan found to the contrary, commenting that “eBay is not liable for contributory trademark infringement”, leaving Tiffany (the trade mark rights owner) to shoulder the burden of curtailing counterfeit trade on eBay websites through eBay’s VeRO program and similar.

Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 110 781 826) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2008] FCAFC 82 (28 May 2008); Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 2) [2006] FCA 1787 (20 December 2006)
A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has concluded that atorvastatin calcium, the active ingredient in the cholesterol-reduction drug, Lipitor, remains under patent protection, notwithstanding that a patent for a more specific form of that drug was found to be invalid.
Back in 1987, Warner-Lambert Company, LLC (better known as Pfizer Inc.) filed for and obtained patent rights in Australia covering all forms of atorvastatin calcium (the Broader Patent). Three years later, Warner-Lambert Company filed a more restricted patent claiming only the R enantiomer forms of atorvastatin calcium (the Enantiomer Patent). Some time later generics drugs manufacturer Ranbaxy began to make its own form of atorvastatin calcium, only using the R enantiomer form of the drug. In order to distribute the drug legally in Australia though, Ranbaxy needed to remove the obstacles that were the Warner-Lambert Company patents.

In the Federal Court case of World of Technologies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Tempo (Aust) Pty Ltd 2007 FCA 114 it has held that a threat of infringement made by the Applicant against the Respondent was unjustified. In this case, the World of Technologies was the holder of an Australian Design Registration for a bagless vacuum cleaner. World of Technologies’ solicitors issued a letter of demand alleging infringement by Tempo of the Design Registration. At the time of sending the letter of demand the Design Registration had not as yet been certified.