Sometimes clients who have prepared their own applications do not diary the correct deadline in which to file an international application.  

While there is an international right to restoration of priority providing two months grace (in specific circumstances) a number of countries have filed notices of incompatibility including: 

Even when a notice of incompatibility is not filed, complying offices my apply one or both of: 1) a test based on whether there was due care or 2) a test based on whether the failure to file was unintentional.

For Example -

The EPO in its function both as receiving Office and as designated/ elected Office will grant such a request only if the failure to claim the right of priority within the priority period occurred in spite of due care required by the circumstances having been taken. The requirement of due care is applied by the EPO in accordance with its standing practice under Article 122 EPC. The second criterion referred to in the PCT, whether the failure was unintentional, does not play a role in the procedures before the EPO (see point 629).

 (source:http://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_e_xiii_5.html)

In incompatible jurisdictions stricter tests may apply.  Generally advice will have to be sought from a patent attorney in each jurisdiction in which protection is required/desired.

The following YOUTUBE video provides some guidance for compatible countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzdMsfFeR1s.

Unlike AU, China is a first-to-file country.  This means that a trade mark registration will generally trump any prior use of a trade mark.  Hence misappropriation of a trade mark in China is generally very difficult to defend. In China, it is advisable to file a transliteration of an English trade mark adopting Chinese characters sounding similar to the English trade mark.

In a well publicised case, Qiaodan Sports Co adopted the Chinese-language trade mark ‘乔丹’. The characters are pronounced 'chee-ow dahn' or 'qiaodan', which is phonetically similar to 'Jordan'. Michael Jordan has sued the company for unauthorized use of his name. Qiaodan Sports lawyers have defended to company's use of the mark on the basis that the real intention for picking the name, Qiodan was to evoke the actual meaning of  “grass and trees of the south”.  The similarities with respect to marks are however clearly apparent from the Michale Jordan website.

Some further protection for prior users in China is likely to be provided by amendments to the China's trade mark system commencing on 1 May 2014. The amendments should provide for some relief for misappropriation where a mark is misappropriated in bad faith. The amendments will also allow for multi-class registration. When a trade mark is assigned, all similar trade marks in respect of similar goods must also be assigned. When an application is opposed based on a pre-existing registration only the right holder of the pre-existing registration may commence the opposition. 

We will provide further information once, the associated regulations on the Chinese trade mark system have been released.

The Federal Court had previously granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of a syringe allegedly infringing a granted patent.  In overturning the injunction, the Full Court  performed a detailed examination of the scope of patent.   The case shows that: 1) in applying for an injunction the court will generally examine the scope of the patent in fine detail; 2) designing around a patent is possible and should be discussed with your patent attorney before releasing a competing product; and 3) while injunctions are an available remedy, one must consider the issue of damages should an injunction be overturned.

Case: GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited [2013] FCAFC 102 (2 September 2013)