On Friday 21 February 2014, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released its 2014 Compliance and Enforcement Policy (2014 Policy). The 2014 Policy provides a valuable insight into the ACCC’s enforcement priorities for the forthcoming year and, based on past experience, it is reasonable to expect that much of the ACCC’s enforcement activity in the immediate future will be in the areas identified in the 2014 Policy. Accordingly, the 2014 Policy highlights areas of high competition and consumer law regulatory risk for businesses. More…
Monthly Archives: March 2014
The Queensland Government is preparing a new regional plan for South East Queensland to accommodate the one million new homes projected to be needed by 2041.
This will include identifying future growth areas with a predicted need to allocate almost 20,000 hectares of new land for greenfield development. More…
Pruning the ‘ever-branching maze of hypothetical enquiry’ Prepaid Services v Atradius (No.2)  NSWSC 2
- In the latest, and possibly final, instalment of the Prepaid Services v Atradius Credit InsuranceNV saga, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again allowed Atradius to reduce its liability to nil for innocent misrepresentation pursuant to section 28(3) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (the Act).
- After the New South Wales Court of Appeal found that his Honour’s initial consideration of the issue was incomplete, McDougall J had to make the hypothetical inquiry as to whether Atradius would have issued the policy had proper disclosure been made and Prepaid given the opportunity to provide further information (the likely result of full disclosure).
On February 25, 2014 Cooper & Dunham sponsored a program at the Fordham Intellectual Property Institute entitled “A Conversation with Honorable Denny Chin — Litigating, Judging and Intellectual Property Law.” The program was moderated by Professor Hugh C. Hansen, Director of the Intellectual Property Institute.
Intellectual Property Alert: No matter who brings the case patentee bears burden of proving infringement
The Supreme Court unanimously held that a patentee bears burden of proving infringement in a declaratory judgement action brought by a licensee. In Medtronic, Inc. V. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, Medtronic entered into a licensing agreement that permitted it to practice certain Mirowski patents in exchange for royalty payments. Medtronic brought a declaratory judgment action against Mirowski, arguing that certain products did not infringe the patents of the license agreement and that these patents were invalid. The district court and Federal Circuit reached the opposite conclusions on which party bears the burden of providing infringement. The district court placed the burden on the patentee and the Federal Circuit placed the burden on the licensee-plaintiff.