Author: The Hon Peter Heerey AM QC

Axent Holdings Pty Ltd v Compusign Australia Pty Ltd

Patents Act– infringement and validity – variable speed limit signs – whether method or product claims – whether functional limitations were to capabilities or had to be present at all times – Crown use defence– innocent infringement– prior use defence– lapsed patent defence – lack of novelty (and section 24) and inventive step

Prodata Solutions Pty Ltd v South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission (No 3)

Practice and procedure – application for dismissal of proceedings – failure to prosecute proceedings with due diligence – consideration of the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act – application by corporate applicant to dispense with requirement to be legally represented – termination of four successive lawyers

Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd – Part 4: Trade Marks Office Appeal

Trade marks – registration – opposition – appeal under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act against decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing registration of the mark FREEZEFRAME PROTOX – whether a ground of opposition to registration of the marks is established pursuant to ss 42(b), 44, 58, 59, 60 or 62A of the Act

Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd – Part 2: Allergan’s liability case

Trade marks – infringement claim under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – consumer law – misleading or deceptive conduct – torts – passing off – whether director should be held personally liable – Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) – whether respondents infringed applicants’ BOTOX marks by using PROTOX as a trade mark

Allergan Australia Pty Ltd v Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd – Part 1: Introduction

Trade marks – infringement claim under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act – consumer law – misleading or deceptive conduct – torts – passing off – whether director should be held personally liable – cross-claim for removal from Register for non-use – opposition – appeal under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act – BOTOX and PROTOX

Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219

Mr George Defteros is a solicitor specialising in criminal law. He acted for a number of defendants to criminal charges arising out of Melbourne’s Gangland wars of the 80s and 90s.

He sued Google LLC for defamation arising out the results of searches made available by Google’s search engine.