Late last year, the High Court of Australia overturned more than 100 years of precedent when it handed down its decision in Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation  HCA 41 (Calidad v Seiko). Rather than following the existing principle of ‘implied licence’, in its decision, the High Court adopted a US common law patent doctrine, which provides that a patentee’s monopoly rights over its inventions are ‘exhausted’ after sale (the exhaustion doctrine).
Monthly Archives: February 2021
AUSTRALIAN PATENT LAW UPDATE – THE HIGH COURT HAS OVERTURNED OVER 100 YEARS OF LAW, FAVOURING THE US DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION
1. The General Office of the State Council issues the Opinions on Cleaning and Regulating Charges for the Urban Water Supply, Power Supply, Gas Supply and Heating Supply Industry to Promote High-quality Development formulated by the National Development and Reform Commission and other departments. The Opinions requires that the charge of public utility operators be regulated, and unreasonable fees incurred by forced services and bundled services should be strictly prohibited. Illegal activities such as non-implementation of government pricing or government-guided prices, charging unreasonable fees, reaching and implementing monopoly agreements, exclusion and restriction of competition by abusing dominant market positions and administrative power, are the main targets of the investigation and punishment conducted by regulatory
authorities. Read more…
The Russian Government has granted the first compulsory license “in the interests of public security”
On January 5, 2021 the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 3718-r dated December 31, 2020 (the Decree) was published. In accordance with the Decree, Pharmasintez JSC, a Russian generic company, has been granted a 1-year compulsory license to use the inventions of the US companies Gilead Sciences Inc. and Gilead Pharmasset LLC protecting Remdesivirsubject to a “fair compensation”1.
One month after adopting Practice Review No. 3, the Presidium of the Supreme Court on December 23, adopted the next (fourth) review for the year 2020. Along with other issues, the review explains the positions of the Supreme Court in bankruptcy cases, as well as contractual disputes. Below are the positions we recommend pay attention to.
DETAILS: Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 26, 2020 in case No. A40-14914/2018
DESCRIPTION: The defendant in the case of infringement of the exclusive right cannot recover from the right holder the court costs exceeding the awarded damages.
In a provocative decision in the case known as Swales v. KLLM Transport Servs., L.L.C., No. 19-60847 (5th Cir. 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit broke from the pack by upending the standard two-step process for Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or the “Act”) collective certification. The Court opined that the two-step process followed by many, if not most, district courts throughout the country wrongly permitted conditional certification of collective actions without the appropriate evidentiary support to properly determine whether members of the putative collective are “similarly situated” to the named plaintiff(s) in the underlying lawsuit.