Congratulations to the winners of the Henry Hughes IP awards at the 2014 end of year exhibition held by Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Design.

 An applicant who wishes to protect an invention which is, or relates to a ‘micro-organism’ should be particularly aware that the Patents Act 2013 mandates that, where an invention is a micro-organism, the description requirements can only be met when a micro-organism deposit has been filed.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation, a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity has now been ratified by 50 states entered into force on 12 October 2014.

The Patents Act 2013, in addition to other substantive changes, introduces annual maintenance fees (for patent applications) and renewal fees (for granted patents) from the fourth anniversary of the filing date. These fees will only be able to be paid up to three months in advance of the due date.

In a recent decision, the High Court of New Zealand provides useful guidance on preventing trade marks from becoming generic terms: Tasman Insulation Ltd v Knauf Insulation Ltd, [2014] NZHC 960 (May 9, 2014).

On 17 April 2014, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) issued a document regarding the transitional provisions from the Patents Act 1953 to the Patents Act 2013. We have noted most of the transitional provisions as they apply to patent applications in previous articles. However, certain provisions of the Patents Act 2013 will apply to patents granted under the Patents Act 2013.

In combination therapy patents, the invention lies in the discovery of a particular therapeutic benefit to taking two (or more) different pharmaceutical actives together. To provide patent subject matter, the therapeutic benefit must be based on a synergistic or inter-working relationship between the actives in the body; for example, in enhanced activity or in the amelioration of side effects

The Australian High Court recently considered the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body in Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50; 103 IPR 217.

If your trade mark comprises foreign language words, do not assume that it is registrable as a trade mark in Australia. Under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (“the Act”) a trade mark must be capable of distinguishing he applicant’s goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is sought to be registered from the goods or services of other persons. In other words, the trade mark must be distinctive. Depending on the nature of the goods or services of the application, the foreign language words may not be distinctive.