// API callback
jQuery111306593226878903806_1446510736659({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-11-02T22:49:59.456+11:00"},"category":[{"term":"Australia"},{"term":"News"},{"term":"Patentable subject matter"},{"term":"Law reform"},{"term":"Patent Office"},{"term":"US"},{"term":"Patent law"},{"term":"Computer programs"},{"term":"Apple-v-Samsung"},{"term":"Genetic technology"},{"term":"Smartphone wars"},{"term":"Pharmaceuticals"},{"term":"Appeal"},{"term":"Infringement"},{"term":"Innovation policy"},{"term":"New Zealand"},{"term":"Raising the Bar"},{"term":"Business processes"},{"term":"Interlocutory injunction"},{"term":"Obviousness"},{"term":"Politics"},{"term":"Public policy"},{"term":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"term":"Innovation patent"},{"term":"Europe"},{"term":"Examination"},{"term":"Patent attorney profession"},{"term":"Patent litigation"},{"term":"Patents and society"},{"term":"Litigation"},{"term":"Trolls"},{"term":"Licensing"},{"term":"Patentology admin"},{"term":"Claim construction"},{"term":"Legislation"},{"term":"Novelty"},{"term":"Validity"},{"term":"Amendments"},{"term":"Economics"},{"term":"Extensions of time"},{"term":"Extension of patent term"},{"term":"Opposition"},{"term":"FRAND"},{"term":"Strategy"},{"term":"Evidence"},{"term":"Personal"},{"term":"Entitlement"},{"term":"International treaties"},{"term":"Regulations"},{"term":"Compulsory license"},{"term":"Innovation"},{"term":"Public research"},{"term":"UK"},{"term":"Government programs"},{"term":"Inventorship"},{"term":"Competition law"},{"term":"Designs"},{"term":"Federal Court practice"},{"term":"Google"},{"term":"Inventions"},{"term":"Official fees"},{"term":"Canada"},{"term":"Damages"},{"term":"History"},{"term":"Injunctions"},{"term":"PCT"},{"term":"Priority claim"},{"term":"Professional conduct"},{"term":"Accelerated examination"},{"term":"Amazon 1-click"},{"term":"Android"},{"term":"Divisional applications"},{"term":"Prior art"},{"term":"Statistics"},{"term":"WIPO"},{"term":"Biotechnology"},{"term":"Copyright"},{"term":"Indirect infringement"},{"term":"Oracle v Google"},{"term":"Patent filing"},{"term":"Patent pools"},{"term":"Reviews"},{"term":"Scams"},{"term":"Utility\/usefulness"},{"term":"Backlog"},{"term":"Best method\/mode"},{"term":"Funding"},{"term":"High Court"},{"term":"Humour"},{"term":"Microsoft"},{"term":"Ownership"},{"term":"Provisional applications"},{"term":"Reexamination"},{"term":"Revocation"},{"term":"Book review"},{"term":"CCH"},{"term":"China"},{"term":"Confidential information"},{"term":"Crown use"},{"term":"Events"},{"term":"Fair Basis"},{"term":"Fatima Beattie"},{"term":"Fraud"},{"term":"Grace period"},{"term":"Intervening rights"},{"term":"Interview"},{"term":"Japan"},{"term":"Korea"},{"term":"Motorola"},{"term":"Open source"},{"term":"Penalties for Infringement"},{"term":"Plant Breeder's Rights"},{"term":"Privileged communications"},{"term":"Register of Patents"},{"term":"Technology standards"},{"term":"Account of profits"},{"term":"Acquisitions"},{"term":"Apple"},{"term":"Broadband"},{"term":"Cloning"},{"term":"Constitution"},{"term":"Developing world"},{"term":"Double patenting"},{"term":"Electronic communications"},{"term":"Employee inventions"},{"term":"Enablement"},{"term":"Experimental use defence"},{"term":"Extradition"},{"term":"False suggestion"},{"term":"Harmonisation"},{"term":"Inherency"},{"term":"Jurisdiction"},{"term":"Medical research"},{"term":"Patent analytics"},{"term":"Publication"},{"term":"Samsung"},{"term":"Stay of proceedings"},{"term":"Support"},{"term":"Tax incentives"},{"term":"Trademarks"},{"term":"Unity"},{"term":"Unjustified threats"},{"term":"Valuation"},{"term":"Venice"},{"term":"AAT practice"},{"term":"ADR"},{"term":"Amicus curiae"},{"term":"Andrew Christie"},{"term":"Attorney fees"},{"term":"BSKB"},{"term":"Conventions"},{"term":"Costs"},{"term":"Deadlines"},{"term":"Discovery"},{"term":"EU patent"},{"term":"Electronic Transactions Act 1999"},{"term":"Error correction"},{"term":"Estoppel"},{"term":"Evergreening"},{"term":"FOXTEL v TiVo"},{"term":"False marking"},{"term":"IPTA"},{"term":"In-house counsel"},{"term":"Indonesia"},{"term":"Interference"},{"term":"Inventors"},{"term":"Joint infringement"},{"term":"Judicial review"},{"term":"Latin America"},{"term":"Maintenance fees"},{"term":"Marking"},{"term":"Media"},{"term":"Michael Cammarata"},{"term":"Newsbytes"},{"term":"Non-disclosure agreements"},{"term":"Notice to Produce"},{"term":"Nullification of acceptance"},{"term":"Omnibus claims"},{"term":"PPH"},{"term":"Paris Convention"},{"term":"Patent Cooperation Treaty"},{"term":"Patent of addition"},{"term":"Patent specifications"},{"term":"Peer-to-Patent"},{"term":"Philanthropy"},{"term":"Piracy"},{"term":"Prior use defence"},{"term":"Recipes"},{"term":"Regulatory use defence"},{"term":"Remedies"},{"term":"Science"},{"term":"Secret use"},{"term":"Security interests"},{"term":"Shark Tank"},{"term":"Soundbytes"},{"term":"Standard of proof"},{"term":"Stem Cells"},{"term":"Summary judgment"},{"term":"Surrender of patent"},{"term":"Survey"},{"term":"TRIPS"},{"term":"The Asian Century"},{"term":"Trans-Pacific Partnership"},{"term":"Treaties"},{"term":"USITC"},{"term":"Victoria"},{"term":"Vringo"},{"term":"Whole of contents"},{"term":"Yacht racing"},{"term":"ZTE"},{"term":"iOS"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"patentology"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":""},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/feeds\/posts\/summary"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/summary?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=5\u0026category=Australia,Australia"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/search\/label\/Australia"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"},{"rel":"next","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/summary?alt=json-in-script\u0026start-index=6\u0026max-results=5\u0026category=Australia,Australia"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"395"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"5"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-6358517217450796201"},"published":{"$t":"2015-10-18T18:24:00.000+11:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-10-18T18:25:48.207+11:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Biotechnology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Genetic technology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent Office"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patentable subject matter"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Proposed Australian Examination Practice Gives Narrow Interpretation to High Court’s Myriad Ruling"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"IP Australia has opened a consultation on proposed changes in examination practice in light of the High Court’s ruling in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35.  Although many people had feared (or hoped, depending upon their particular predilections) that the Australian Patent Office would follow the lead of the USPTO, and take a broad view of the High Court’s judgment, it is clear from the"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/10\/proposed-australian-examination.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/6358517217450796201"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/6358517217450796201"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/10\/proposed-australian-examination.html","title":"Proposed Australian Examination Practice Gives Narrow Interpretation to High Court’s Myriad Ruling"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-YVn-ZYLAcRw\/ViNINUN7O2I\/AAAAAAAADro\/4IE28ROQxHk\/s72-c\/Narrows%25255B4%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-4874676512079259054"},"published":{"$t":"2015-10-09T15:14:00.001+11:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-10-09T15:14:05.813+11:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Biotechnology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Genetic technology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Innovation"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patentable subject matter"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Public policy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Trans-Pacific Partnership"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Australian High Court Nukes Biotech Industry from Orbit: “It’s the Only Way to be Sure”"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"The High Court of Australia has followed the US Supreme Court in unanimously declaring that naturally-occurring DNA sequences – even when extracted from the cell nucleus and isolated by human intervention – cannot, in themselves, be validly the subject of patent protection.  In particular, all seven High Court judges found that claims 1-3 of Myriad Genetics’ Australian patent no. 686004, each of "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/10\/australian-high-court-nukes-biotech.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/4874676512079259054"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/4874676512079259054"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/10\/australian-high-court-nukes-biotech.html","title":"Australian High Court Nukes Biotech Industry from Orbit: “It’s the Only Way to be Sure”"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-oqu-q1unpjY\/Vhc-ZLQuYfI\/AAAAAAAADrU\/nbnLFNLQ0cA\/s72-c\/Nuclear%252520explosion%25255B4%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-8371418784080372636"},"published":{"$t":"2015-10-05T00:48:00.000+11:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-10-05T00:48:19.696+11:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Innovation patent"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Innovation policy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Law reform"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"‘Free Software’ Advocates Aside, Submissions to IP Australia Overwhelmingly Support Innovation Patent System"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"As I have previously reported, IP Australia has been conducting a consultation process on the posthumous recommendation by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) that the Australian government consider abolishing the innovation patent system.  \n\nThe due date for public feedback on this proposal was 28 September 2015.  The submissions have now been published and, with the exception "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/10\/free-software-advocates-aside.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/8371418784080372636"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/8371418784080372636"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/10\/free-software-advocates-aside.html","title":"‘Free Software’ Advocates Aside, Submissions to IP Australia Overwhelmingly Support Innovation Patent System"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-vatr2EYcQMc\/VhEtZit_ULI\/AAAAAAAADrA\/QC4OcZq4IDg\/s72-c\/Support%25255B7%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-4303064472725812443"},"published":{"$t":"2015-09-13T18:48:00.000+10:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-09-13T18:48:31.276+10:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent law"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent Office"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Raising the Bar"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Utility\/usefulness"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Australian Patent Office Rejects ‘Free Energy’ Application for Lack of Utility"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"Back in April I published an article about patenting perpetual motion and free energy machines.  One of the points I made in that article was that prior to the passage of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 it was actually possible to obtain a patent in Australia for such a device, even though it could not work because it would violate fundamental laws of physics."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/09\/australian-patent-office-rejects-free.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/4303064472725812443"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/4303064472725812443"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/09\/australian-patent-office-rejects-free.html","title":"Australian Patent Office Rejects ‘Free Energy’ Application for Lack of Utility"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-wSyRvzCVArM\/VfU3wNGi9vI\/AAAAAAAADqA\/F7bG4RvG_vs\/s72-c\/Perpetual%25255B5%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-7448361995720800469"},"published":{"$t":"2015-09-06T17:30:00.000+10:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-09-06T17:40:09.523+10:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Appeal"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"High Court"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Obviousness"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The ‘Skilled Person’ is a ‘Pale Shadow’ and a ‘Tool’ – Australian High Court Rules on Obviousness"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"Last week I predicted that the High Court would affirm the finding of five judges of the Federal Court of Australia that AstraZenenca’s patents covering low-dosage forms of the cholesterol-lowering drug marketed as CRESTOR (having the active ingredient rosuvastatin) are invalid on grounds of obviousness.\n\nIn the much-anticipated decision in AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (et al) [2015] HCA 30, "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/09\/the-skilled-person-is-pale-shadow-and.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/7448361995720800469"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/7448361995720800469"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/09\/the-skilled-person-is-pale-shadow-and.html","title":"The ‘Skilled Person’ is a ‘Pale Shadow’ and a ‘Tool’ – Australian High Court Rules on Obviousness"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-MyjVyQ6-WxY\/Vevq5XCzQHI\/AAAAAAAADpg\/q78VhjWLGqw\/s72-c\/Shadowman%25255B4%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}}]}});