Copyright & Designs

Have you just completed a new documentary or a beautiful website? Are you wondering whether you can use that beautiful photo that you have found on the web? Come and meet with us to find out the "dos and don’ts" of copyright. At Ludwig Lawyers, we can also draft commercial licensing agreements, or we can advise you on the various types of Creative Commons licences if you wish to participate in the newly emerging sharing economy by making your material available for others at no cost.

Trademarks & Domain Names

How many times have you asked yourself why you did not register that fabulous sounding domain name in the first place? Is there a chance to get it back? Maybe. Contact us to discuss your options.

Patents

"Integrate rather than segregate." Permaculture Principle

At Ludwig Lawyers, we believe in collaboration rather than competition. These days, patents seem to be granted to every Tom, Dick and Harry for all kinds of so-called "inventions" that border on the ridiculous. It would be worthwhile to have a proper public examination of the unexamined assumption that patents encourage innovation. The best inventions were not made with monetary gain in mind. The IT sector was first to recognise the value of sharing. We we are big fans of Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors, who decided to make Tesla's patented inventions available to the public. To save the planet, actions need to be taken fast, innovations need to be open to be further developed as quickly as possible. Let's consider that patents may be a hindrance to this. 

At Ludwig Lawyers, we strongly object to patents being granted on genetic material, the origin of life. We follow the Permaculture Ethics "Care for the Earth, Care for People, Fair Share", and therefore, we do not act for companies that seek patents/ownership over any genetic material. 

Plant Breeders Rights

At Ludwig Lawyers, we believe that plant varieties should be in the public domain, and we therefore do not act for anyone seeking to have a plant breeders rights granted over a new plant variety. 

Links

Copyright

• Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
• Copyright Regulations 1969 (Cth)
• Copyright Council
• Creative Commons Australia
• Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA)
• The Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS)
  
• Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited (PPCA)
  

Designs

• Designs Act 2003 (Cth)
• Designs Regulations 2004 (Cth)
• IP Australia

Trademarks and Domain Names

• Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
• Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth)
• IP Australia
• Australian Domain Name Administrator (.auDA)
• Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Patents - Australia

• Patents Act 1990 (Cth) 
• Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth)
• IP Australia and AusPat
• Inquiry into Gene Patents, 26 November 2010 (completed inquiry)
• Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010 (completed Senate  Inquiry). Unfortunately, the Parliament never voted for the Bill, and it lapsed. The Dissenting Report is worth reading, and our MPs should have relied on this Dissenting Report and should have enacted this Bill. Watch Dr Luigi Palombi explain the Bill at “Patenting of Genes - Ownership of Crops and Cures by Multinationals?” and at “What’s the Future of Food”.
• Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) ("the Amendment Act"). The Amendment Act introduced a new "experimental use" defence into the Patents Act and a new definition of "useful" (see new section 7A of the Patents Act).
• Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics Inc [2013] FCA 65, Federal Court of Australia, Nicholas J, 15 February 2013. This is a test case on whether gene patents can be granted in Australia, specifically whether a patent can be granted over the BRCA1 gene. Watch Prof Peter Cashman explain the law and the court case before the hearing and before the judgment was handed down: “Patenting of Genes - Ownership of Crops and Cures by Multinationals”. Unfortunately, the applicants lost the case. Nicholas J held that an isolated gene, in contrast to a gene in situ, is patentable. Ms Yvonne D'Arcy, the second applicant, appealed the case. The appeal was heard in August 2013 in the Full Federal Court in Sydney. Unfortunately, Yvonne D'Arcy lost the appeal before the Full Federal Court of Australia: see D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 (5 September 2014). The Full Federal Court decision is contrary what the highest court of the United States decided on the same issue, namely, that isolated genes cannot be patented in the United States. See also the following news articles on the Full Federal Court of Australia judgment: "Australian federal court rules isolated genetic material can be patented - Decision is likened to ‘being allowed to patent oxygen’, as critics warn of serious repercussions for medical research", The Guardian, 5 September 2015, and "Calls for patent law reform after Federal Court judgment", ABC, 5 September 2014. Ms Yvonne D'Arcy has sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. As at 25 September 2014, the High Court's decision whether it would grant her leave to appeal is pending.

Patents - United States

• "Myriad Genetics" case. First instance: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (held: genes not patentable). Second instance: Myriad Genetics v Association for Molecular Pathology, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (held: isolated DNA can be patented). Third instance: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Federal Court, second hearing, 16 August 2012 (held: isolated DNA can be patented). On 30 November 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of the Federal Circuit' ruling. Oral arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on 15 April 2013. See the transcript here. Myriad lost in The Supreme Court (the highest court in the United States) which decided on [insert date] that isolated genes cannot be patented: see [insert judgement details]
• Prometheus case: Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories Inc (Supreme Court of the Unites States, 20 March 2012)
• “The Future of Food” - classic 1997 documentary on GM crops by Deborah Garcia

Patents - International

• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT)
• World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
• Art 27 to 34 of TRIPS Agreement

Patents - Canada

• Monsanto v Schmeiser: First instance: Monsanto v Schmeiser 2001 FCT 256 (Federal Court). Appeal decision: Schmeiser v Monsanto [2004] 1 SCR 902 (Supreme Court). Watch Percy Schmeiser talk about the problems with GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

 Plant Breeder’s Rights

• Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth)
• Plant Breeder’s Rights Regulations 1994 (Cth)
• IP Australia and PBR Search Database
• International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
• International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)
• Introduction to UPOV - slideshow on the definitions of “UPOV”, “Variety”, “Improvement”, “Benefit”, “Protection”, “Breeder”, “Exceptions” and “Conditions”

Contact Ludwig Lawyers

To find out more, please call us on 0410 583 550 or send an email to info@ludwiglawyers.com.