Most Recent
Casino gaming giant Aristocrat may sue competitor Light & Wonder and two former employees who jumped ship for allegedly misusing confidential information about its popular Lightning Link and Dragon Link games to develop a competing product.
The litigation funder that bankrolled a patent infringement case by a vehicle monitoring systems manufacturer is on the hook for legal costs after technology company SARB succeeded in appealing a finding that it infringed the IP for a parking detection system used by the City of Melbourne.
A US-based animal genomics company has taken Australia's leading livestock and dairy groups to court, alleging they have infringed its patent for a system for conducting genetic testing on beef and dairy cattle by doing genetic testing without a licence.
A judge has ruled that media monitor Isentia did not infringe the copyright of Sky News, despite the “wholesale copying” of content for its government clients, because its actions were done for the “services of the Commonwealth or State”.
After a seven-year legal battle, a court has upheld the validity of Neurim Pharmaceutical’s patent for insomnia drug Circadin and ruled two generic drug companies infringed the intellectual property.
Electronic payment solutions company BPAY has filed a lawsuit accusing crypto platform owner Be Pay Australia of infringing its BPAY trade mark.
A judge has ruled gaming giant Aristocrat Technologies cannot patent its Lightning Link electronic poker machine, after six High Court Justices split on whether the popular game was eligible for patent protection.
Cross-border technology expert Lisa Fitzgerald has joined Norton Rose Fulbright from Lander & Rogers, bringing her expertise in media, telecommunications, privacy and intellectual property to the firm.
Sydney hospitality mogul Justin Hemmes has sued a Brisbane restaurant, Establishment 203, claiming it has breached its ‘Establishment’ trade mark and failed to carry out any searches before opening its business under the name.
The sole director of a small software company can't act for his business in defending against an intellectual property case brought by digital titan Google, despite his plea to the court that his firm did not have the financial means to hire lawyers.