In the media
US activist Erin Brockovich joins fight against Defence
Department over firefighting foam
American legal activist Erin Brockovich has arrived in
Australia to support a class action lawsuit against the Department
of Defence over widespread PFAS contamination, saying there are
"eerie" similarities to the 1993 US case (29 August
2018).
More...
In practice and courts
SafeWork Australia: Workplace exposure standards review
methodology
The aim of this review is to develop a list of
health-based recommendations for workplace exposure standards
(WES) in Australia. The review will result in
recommendations for the workplace exposure standard values,
notations and the list of chemicals. The recommendations and
supporting information will be published in individual evaluation
reports for each chemical. The evaluations of individual chemicals
will commence in the second half of 2018.
More...
Reminder: Australian Digital Health Agency three month
"opt-out period" for My Health
Record
As
announced by the Australian Digital Health Agency, every
Australian will be offered a My Health Record unless they choose
not to have one during the three-month opt out period which has
been extended to 15 November 2018. A national communications
strategy will be implemented to explain the opt-out process. During
the opt out period individuals who do not want a record will be
able to opt out by visiting the My Health Record
website.
Cases
Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation (No 3)
[2018] FCA 1204
PATENTS – where applicant seeks relief by way of
declarations of invalidity and orders for revocation of claims in
two patents (the 946 Patent and the 666 Patent) – where
respondent is the registered owner of the two patents and denies
that the claims are invalid – whether, in respect of the 946
Patent, there is a lack of inventive step, lack of novelty, the
patent was obtained by false suggestion and the invention is not
useful – whether, in respect of the 666 Patent, there is a
lack of inventive step and a lack of novelty.
PATENTS – where respondent brings a cross-claim against the
applicant in which it seeks declarations to the effect that the
applicant has threatened to infringe claims in the two patents
– whether applicant has threatened to infringe claims in the
two patents – where claims in respect of which the respondent
alleges threatened infringement are the same claims which the
applicant alleges are invalid – where, in respect of the two
patents, the applicant admits, subject to its case on invalidity,
threatened infringement in respect of certain claims – where
applicant denies infringement in respect of certain claims in the
two patents – where, in respect of the 666 Patent, the
applicant does not admit threatened infringement of certain claims,
but accepts that expert evidence establishes threatened
infringement, subject to its case on invalidity.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where respondent seeks injunctions,
damages or an account of profits, additional damages or other
relief – where issues of quantum arising from the
respondent's cross-claim be heard and determined separately
from, and after, all other issues in the proceeding.
Legislation
Subordinate legislation as made – 31 August
2018
No 133
Public Health (Medicinal Cannabis) and Other Legislation Amendment
Regulation 2018
This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.
