Trans-Tasman Patent Attorney Regime

Trans-Tasman Patent Attorney Regime With the emergence of the bilateral trans-Tasman patent attorney regime, patent attorneys from Australia and New Zealand can practice across borders to prosecute patents in both countries. This agreement is very beneficial for both Australia and New Zealand, which have a combined total of less than five hundred (500) patent attorneys, yet serve a combined population of approximately 28 million people.[1][2] Practitioners registered in both countries must be aware of the filing deadlines for both countries. For example, the filing of a national phase application that stems from an international application is thirty-one months for both countries. However, this is not the case for every country to the Convention. For this reason, it is important for patent attorneys licensed in both countries understand the differences between the laws. For example, Australian patent applications are not examined automatically.[3] The applicant’s patent practitioner must file a request for examination within two (2) months of receiving the notice from the Australian Patent Office. And at the time of examination, the applicant must provide details, such as any assignment or employment that derives the rights in the patent. Oppositely and similar to the United States, New Zealand patent applications are examined in due course simply by filing and waiting in line at the New Zealand patent office.[4] Yet another difference, New Zealand requires that divisional patent applications are filed before the parent application is accepted, whereas Australia allows 3 months from the acceptance of the parent application to file. Approximately half of all Australian and New Zealand patent attorneys are registered to prosecute patents in both countries.[5] Accordingly, it is important to vet your patent attorney to make sure they understand some of the differences [...]

Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio

Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio The issue of novelty may not garner much attention with the patent office during the application phase, but that all changes during litigation when opposing patent attorneys seek to invalidate your patent rights. One of the main requirements for obtaining patent rights is novelty, which states that: […]

Patent Attorney Review of Correct Craft IP Holdings v. Trick Towers

Patent Attorney Review of Correct Craft IP Holdings, LLC v. Trick Towers, LLC South Florida Patent Attorneys keep busy with the steady stream of innovation coming from the marine industry.  In Correct Craft Holdings v. Trick Towers [1], the patent attorney for the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the Defendant had sold or offered for sale a water sport tower contained in the Plaintiff’s patent.  It is not uncommon, however, for the Defendant who was served with the complaint for patent infringement to simply […]

Patent Attorney review of Miami Tech v. Perez

In Miami Tech, Inc. v. Perez, the Court granted the patent attorney for the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a patent infringement claim for which relief can be granted.  Case No. 13-CV-21681.  The declaratory action asked the court to declare that the patent registration No. 8,348,071 was invalid. [1]  Plaintiff’s patent attorney alleged that Defendant committed inequitable conduct in obtaining the patent because allegedly […]

Useful Patent

Useful Patent For Some Legitimate Purpose With the new marijuana laws coming out of California, Washington, and Colorado, there has been a significant amount of coverage about the innovations to the marijuana industry. [1]  You might think that means lots of new patents and trademarks, but then you might have to think again as it relates to patents.  Inventions are required under law to be “useful” in order to issue as a valid patent.  If the invention claimed by the patent application can only be used for […]

Go to Top