'On 1 November 2013, Australia and twelve other countries, announced the commencement of a Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) pilot. The pilot will soon provide applicants with a unified framework to fast track their patent applications at participating IP offices, based on an allowance in one participating office.'

'The pilot will include work in the national context and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The following offices are participating:

Canadian Intellectual Property Office
Danish Patent and Trademark Office
National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland
Japan Patent Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office
Nordic Patent Institute
Norwegian Industrial Property Office
Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property
Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property
Spanish Patent and Trademark Office'

Source: ipaustralia.gov.au

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) 

The Hearing Officer, John Spence found that the Opponent (HD Lee) had not established its opposition. Therefore, he allowed the two trade mark applications challenged to proceed to grant. Costs were awarded against the Opponent in favour of the Applicant.

The case shows the importance of registering your trade marks and ensuring that the marks on the register are regularly updated to reflect the actual marks used, especially if the mark is presented as a device. If this is done it will be possible to protect your trade mark.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/ATMO/2013/49.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=ladyrider

Citation:RPL Central Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 871  
Parties:RPL CENTRAL PTY LTD (ACN 136 181 989) v COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS  
File number:VID 817 of 2011  
Judge:MIDDLETON J  
Date of judgment:30 August 2013

' I consider that the invention in question is a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, and is a manner of manufacture for the purpose of s 18 of the Act.  In light of these findings, it is unnecessary to consider further claims 2 to 4 of the Patent.'

https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=300939

AJPark Intellectual Property 

"New Zealand will continue to grant patents for inventions that make use of or involve computer programs. There is clearly expressed parliamentary intention to apply the Aerotel test and subsequent English jurisprudence that applies this test."  

http://www.ajpark.com/media-centre/2013/08/new-zealand-takes-a-traditional-approach-to-software-patents/

IP Australia experienced a surge in voluntary patent examination requests in the 2012/13 financial year. Most were filed in March and April immediately prior to the introduction of the IP Laws Amendment Act 2012. The total number of examination requests in 2012/13 was more than double the previous financial year.

The main impact of this surge will be an increase in the pendency of first reports in coming years. Pendency is expected to increase in the December 2013 quarter, and is likely to exceed the 12 month customer service charter commitment by the end of April 2014. Based on projections, this could average up to 19 months at its peak during 2014, before returning to the 12 month commitment in early 2015.

In response, IP Australia has restricted directions to applications that are 57 months from filing date. This will keep new requests for examination to a minimum, while the enormous volume of pre April 2013 examination requests are processed.

It is likely that IP Australia will have to revise the customer service charter in 2014 due to these exceptional circumstances.

IP Australia will continue to monitor the situation and update customers where appropriate.