IPTA SEPTEMBER 2008

ContentsReport - Patent Hearing 2

Officer Selection & Development Program

Report - IPTA Challenges IP Australia 3 Examination Procedures

Notice - Essay Competition 4

Report - Case Law 5 - 6

Obituary - Alan Geoffrey 7 (Geoff) McKee

Report - Silver Anniversary 8 - 10 celebration of the great sporting exchange!

Oddfellow 11 - 14

Notices to members 15

Advertisements 16 - 22

1 July 2008 began a new era for the patent and trade mark attorney profession in Australia.

A new Code of Conduct, Continuing Professional Education, pre-registration employment requirements and disciplinary provisions have all come into force.

The Code of Conduct is no more than a codification of good business practice and should be welcomed by all practitioners. Fellows of IPTA have worked under a Code of Ethics for many years and it is good that all professionals in the field will be bound to a code of conduct.

The introduction of Continuing Professional Education into our profession brings our profession into line with many other professions. Continuous updating of skills is a practice which most attorneys have carried out and as such is merely a formalisation of current practices. There is a problem with application of these requirements to retired patent attorneys and those qualified attorneys who practice in an allied profession such as licensing executives and at the bar. Some fine tuning of the requirements is necessary in such areas.

Pre-registration employment requirements will ensure that those who register to practice have the necessary practical qualifications as well as the theoretical. The availability of university courses allows people to qualify without the considerable “apprenticeship” which in the past occurred.

It is hoped that the disciplinary provisions of the new regulations will never need to be used but they appear reasonable and they do remove the perception of the profession judging itself.

Overall the profession will be stronger by the introduction of these regulations.

Alun Thomas Convenor of IPTA Publications Committee

From the editor

IPTA

2

repo

rt

IP Australia has implemented a structured program for the selection and development of Patent Hearing Officers. The program uses a competency based approach for that selection and development.

IP Australia recognises the increasing importance of being able to provide competent Hearing Officers to decide disputes. There is also a desire to provide IP Australia staff with the opportunity of alternative career development. Accordingly, in September 2007 a revised Patent Hearing Officer structure and selection process, underpinned by specific Hearing Officer competencies was introduced.

The new structure involves the following roles:

• Assistant Hearing Officers: are selected from interested staff, and are mentored by experienced Hearing Officers. They assist Hearing Officers in the preparation of the hearing and the statement of reasons for the decision.

• Hearing Officers: have been assessed as competent against the competencies. They hold a special delegation from the Commissioner to carry out hearings.

• Hearing Officer Standards Panel: made up of the Assistant General Manager (OHL) and four experienced Hearing Officers. The Panel is responsible for assessing whether Assistant Hearing Officers have achieved competency, implementing general training for Hearing Officers, and peer reviewing decisions.

The competencies of a Hearing Officer include knowledge of administrative law, knowledge of patent law, ability to conduct a hearing, ability to prepare reasons for decision. The competencies have been developed in accordance with guidelines produced by the Department of Education, Science and Training, and align with the competency based programs for training Patent Examiners.

There are currently four Assistant Hearing Officers who are being developed and assessed according to the Program. One of those has reached the end of the process and is expected to be appointed as a Hearing Officer in the near future.

As part of the program IP Australia is providing a tailored two-day Administrative Law training course for Patent and Trade Marks Hearing Officers. It is planned that all current Patent Hearing Officers as well as Assistant Hearing Officers will have completed the course by the end of 2008. The course is being presented by Fiona McKenzie, a Barrister and Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne.

The Program also includes the conduct of moot hearings to assist in assessing the competency of Assistant Hearing Officers.

IP Australia is to be commended on this education and training initiative relating to one of its very important administrative roles.

Graham CowinConvenorPatent Practice Committee

Patent Hearing Officer Selection & Development Program

IPTA

3

reportIPTA has raised issues with IP Australia in relation to use of foreign examination reports (FERs) and this has resulted in proposed changes by IP Australia. Nineteen example were given.

Common themes of complaint were:

(a) copies of FERs relied upon by the examiner have not been provided;

(b) inadequate search and/or examination;

(c) generalisations made in respect to claims and/or applicable law.

IP Australia’s response is that three of the items were simply noted as they did not relate to specific cases. Five of the remaining sixteen items appear to be defendable in respect to the FERs process itself. In the remaining eleven cases, something about the FERs process can be faulted, either partially or wholly in agreement with the complaints raised.

The proposed changes include:

Recommendations:

•ThatIPTAbeinformedthatIPAustraliawillnotprovidecopiesofFERsrelieduponbyexaminers. The FERs are publicly available on IP office web sites.

Changes to Examiners’ Manual and associated staff communications.

• TherequirementforidentificationoftheFERbytypeanddateinanexaminationreportbemore prominently placed in the FERs section of the manual.

• Theemphasisonsearching,intheAdditionalSearchingsectionoftheManual,changefrom not searching unless the examiner is confident of finding better citable art to the examiner searching if she/he suspects better art might be found.

• TheManual,wherefirstreportisbasedonanadverseFER,moreclearlystatethatthereport indicate the claim numbers that are being objected to and the statutory basis for objection.

• ThatexplanationandcontextinrespecttoAustralianlawbeputinexaminationreportswhere the reasoning given in a FER, on the face of it, does not readily seem applicable under Australian law or the reasoning therein is not strong yet the FER objection is valid.

• Thatinformationsessionsbeprovidedonthedifferentpracticesandlawsacrossmultiplejurisdictions, particularly where AU law is out of step; e.g. inventive step (particularly mosaics), fair basis.

• Thatapplicantresponsesbecommentedonwhereobjectionismaintainedinthelightofa FER and the FER does not clearly address alleged distinguishing points raised in the response.

• Thatthemanual’sinstructionsonobtainingforeignlanguageassistancebealsoplacedinthe FERs section of the manual.

• Informationsessionsforallpatentexaminationstaffbeheldtohighlighttheaboverecommendations. Combinations of one or more of the following would seem appropriate: group discussion, section meetings and articles in relevant IP Australia publications.

IPTA Challenges IP Australia Examination Procedures

IPTA

4

The Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia conducts an essay competition named in honour of former President and active member of the Institute, Malcolm Royal. The purpose of the competition is to encourage and promote higher learning within the IP profession in Australia, and so the essay may be on any intellectual property subject having relevance to Australian practitioners.Entries in this year’s competition are now invited. The closing date for entries is Friday 31 October 2008.

PrizeThe Malcolm Royal Prize will include a payment of AU$10,000.00 toward the cost of registration, accommodation and travel associated with attending a recognised international IP conference or meeting as selected by the winning author(s). The prize will be presented at the 2009 IPTA annual conference. The winning entry will be published in the internationally circulated magazine Managing Intellectual Property.

EligibilityTo be eligible to enter the competition, the author(s) must be:

• anAustralianresident,and

• acurrentIPTAmember(includingStudentandOrdinarymembers,andFellows).

RulesThe rules of the competition are:

• Essaysmustbepreviouslyunpublishedworks.

• Essaysmustbeoriginalworksoftheauthor(s).

• Essaysmaybeco-authored,buttheprizewillbesharedequallyamongstthewinningauthor(s).

• Essaysaretobeamaximumof3,000words,plusamaximum100wordabstract.

• Theprizemustbetakenwithintwelvemonthsofitspresentation.

• Theprizeisnottransferableorredeemableforcash.

• Theprizewillnotnecessarilybeawarded.

• Thedecisionofthejudgeswillbefinalandnocorrespondenceregardingthedecisionwillbe entered into.

• IPTACouncilmayinitsdiscretionpublishnon-winningentriesintheIPTANewsletter.

Entry SubmissionEach entry should consist of a typed copy of the essay accompanied by a separate sheet containing the name and contact details of the or each author.

Entries should be sent to:Ms Linda TocchetExecutive SecretaryThe Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia

Essay CompetitionMALCOLM ROYAL PRIZE

noti

ce

IPTA

5

report

Chiropedic Bedding Pty Ltd v Radburg Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 142Full Federal Court of Australia, French, Rares and Besanko JJ, 14 August 2008

Designs –international exhibition

The Respondent claimed that the Applicant pre-published and therefore invalidated its design by exhibiting its product at an exhibition before the priority date of the design. The Applicant relied upon the exception within section 47 of the Designs Act 1906 (Cth) which provides that an “officially recognised international exhibition” would not invalidate the design.

At first instance, his Honour found that the exhibition in question did not have a sufficient international presence, in both a quantitative and qualitative sense, to fall within that definition. This was overturned by the Full Court which found the fact that exhibitors from Australia and New Zealand were at the exhibition was sufficient to make it international.

Cadbury UK Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2008] FCA 1126Federal Court of Australia, Finkelstein J, 1 August 2008

Suspension of opposition – court proceedings – trade marks

The Applicant’s trade mark for the colour purple was opposed by Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (Darrell Lea). Darrell Lea applied to suspend the opposition pending resolution of a passing off action before the Court. The Registrar granted the request.

The Applicant appealed the decision to the Court. The Court overturned the Registrar’s decision on the basis that firstly, a suspension could cause a delay of several years, amounting to an effective failure to hear the opposition, and secondly, a suspension on the basis of the Federal Court proceedings amounted to the delegate giving too much significance to the findings of fact in that would be made in the Federal Court.

Although the Court overturned the delegate’s decision, it did say that there will be circumstances where it might be appropriate to suspend opposition proceedings pending an outcome in the Court. This would depend on (a) the degree of similarity of issues involved, (b) the significance of the issues to the opposition proceeding, (c) whether the Registrar has more evidence than the trial judge, (d) the likelihood of the judge’s findings being challenged, and (e) whether it may be unfair (that is, a breach of the rules of natural justice) to rely on the judge’s findings or the evidence on which those findings were based.

Insta Image Pty Ltd v KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 139 Full Federal Court of Australia, Lindgren, Bennett and Logan JJ, 1 August 2008

Patents – inventive step – Section 7(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)

The Respondent to this proceeding appealed the trial judge’s decision on novelty and inventive step. The Full Court upheld the trial judge’s findings that the patent was novel and inventive.

Interestingly, on the subject of inventive step, the Court made the observation that no additional information could be taken into account under subsection 7(3) of the Act. This was because there was evidence that persons skilled in the art would not have read the earlier documents sought to be combined under that subsection.

Recent Case Law I

IPTA

6

repo

rt Sherman v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1026 Federal Court of Australia, Jessup J, 9 July 2008

Patents – admission of evidence previously put before the Patent Office

This proceeding concerned an appeal from a decision of the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents. After hearing a contested opposition the delegate found that the invention was not novel and did not involve an inventive step. The Applicant appealed to the Court.

The Respondent subsequently withdrew from the appeal and the Commissioner was substituted in its place. The question before the Court then became whether the Commissioner, without calling the deponents of various statutory declarations, could present the evidence before her in the appeal. This evidence was provided to the Commissioner by the Opponent (the subsequent Respondent).

The Commissioner wished to have that material put before the Court so that it could consider the appeal on the basis of the same evidence. The Commissioner argued that Order 58 Rule 8 of the Federal Court Rules allowed the receipt of the material before the Court.

The Court found that the Commissioner would still be required to adhere to the rules of evidence, requiring that evidence be put before the Court in the usual way. Consequently, the declaratory material could not be put before the Court without calling each of the deponents of the declarations to give evidence. It appears that the Commissioner was not in a position to do this and hence the evidence was not allowed to be put before the Court.

ITW AFC Pty Ltd v Loi and Tran Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 895Federal Court of Australia, Finkelstein J, 12 June 2008.

Patents –infringement failed – cross-claim for revocation failed - costs

The Applicant alleged patent infringement. The Respondent sought revocation on a number of grounds. Each claim failed – the patent was non-infringed but valid. The Respondent submitted that the cross-claim was only bought as a defensive measure and in essence they had been successful in the proceedings. The Court rejected this argument and ordered that each party bear its own costs because each had a measure of success and failure.

Changes to Federal Court Practice: 2 September 2008 Practice Note

The Victorian and New South Wales District Registries of the Federal Court of Australia have introduced a new procedure for the resolution of patent proceedings. In short summary, the practice note provides that :

* The proceeding will be managed by a Judge in charge of the Patents List during the pre-trial stages.

* On the first return date, the parties should be in a position to explain the issues in the proceedings, including whether infringement is disputed.

* After the filing of particulars of invalidity the party seeking revocation must explain how each ground of invalidity can be supported. The particulars of invalidity should include details of the passages of any prior publication relied upon for novelty purposes.

* The proceeding will managed in a way that will provides for various other steps and actions to be taken to specifically narrow the disputes between the parties well before trial.

I Ian Horak is a barrister at the Victorian Bar. He is also a Patent and Trade Marks Attorney and member of the Institute. The following is a selection of cases that are intended to be of interest to practitioners. The full text of each of these decisions may be found on the AustLII case law database at www.austlii.edu.au.

I I It is intended that Justice Middleton will be the judge in charge of the Patents List at the Victorian District Registry and that Justice Bennett will be the judge in charge of the Patents List in the New South Wales District Registry. A copy of the practice note can be found at the Federal Court of Australia website at www.fedcourt.gov.au.

IPTA

7

obituary

Alan Geoffrey McKee was born on 2 July 1920 in East Ballarat, the youngest son of William George McKee and his wife, Fanny Pearl Ellis. Geoff’s parents moved to East Brighton, Melbourne, when he was one year old and after attending the local state school in 1932 he began his secondary education at Scotch College. A year later his father, who worked for the Commonwealth Bank, was transferred to Gympie in Queensland. Geoff never enjoyed Gympie and was delighted to be sent back to Scotch College as a boarder in 1934 where he completed his education in 1937. In 1938 he started a four year engineering degree at Melbourne University where he was a resident of Ormond College.

During his boarding school days, Geoff always took advantage of his exeats to stay with his cousins in Bentleigh. They were friendly with a couple who lived in the same street who had a young daughter with long blonde pigtails named Jean. Geoff and Jean started a relationship from those teenage years which culminated in their marriage in 1943. Sadly, Geoff died 12 days before their 65th wedding anniversary.

After graduating from Melbourne University, Geoff joined the army, and his war service included postings within Australia and two postings in Papua New Guinea.

When Geoff was demobbed in 1946 he joined a firm of patent and trade mark attorneys then known as Clement Hack and Son, Ashton & White. At that time the firm consisted of two partners, J Barton Hack and Ronald Keith White, and five assistants. The firm was later reconstituted as Clement Hack & Co.

The triumvirate of Barton Hack, Ron White and Geoff McKee presided over the postwar prosperity and the growing national and international reputation of Clement Hack & Co. By the time Geoff retired in 1986 the firm had grown beyond recognition, and had twice removed to larger premises.

Geoff was a systems man. He revolutionised the record keeping systems of the firm and in many ways anticipated the methods of the electronic age at a time when the electric typewriter was still a novelty and the copying machine was in its infancy. Eventually his paper records overwhelmed the available shelf space and were superseded, but his contribution to the efficient working of the firm was immense.

With all that, he remained intensely human, played chess with other staff in the lunch hour, and indulged a lifelong enthusiasm to the cryptic crossword and the music and lyrics of Gilbert & Sullivan. Saturday afternoons were spent with his daughter, Susan, cheering on the South Melbourne football team. When called upon to make a speech he usually delivered it in verse, to the delight of his audience.

Geoff was President of The Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia in 1971 and 1972. Typically, he delivered his entire Presidential Address for 1971 in what he described as “what may fall, with licence, in the category of verse”. His Presidential Address for 1972 was given over almost entirely to a dissertation on the construction of clues for cryptic crosswords and how to solve them, with possible applications of these techniques in the field of trade marks law.

After retirement, Geoff became a part-time farmer in Wallan and then retired to Mt Eliza. In his latter years Geoff became very involved with family history and was particularly keen to re-establish his Cornish roots.

We shall remember Geoff not only for his professionalism, but also for his humanity, often spiced with that slightly wicked humour. He was a devoted husband, and a loving father, grandfather and great-grandfather. You may be gone, Geoff, but you will never be forgotten.

By Tony Ward.

Alan Geoffrey (Geoff) McKee2 July 1920 – 10 May 2008

IPTA

8

This February marked the 25th year of the annual sporting exchange between the Profession and IP Australia. Over the years sports have included tennis, netball, basketball, indoor cricket, boat races, and of course cricket and golf.

To celebrate the long standing tradition, a dinner was held in Canberra where past and present players of all sports were invited to reminisce, and tell tales about their line and length, and then conversations turned to cricket.

It was pleasing to see that many participants from both sides had made the effort to attend, with members of the Profession from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane in attendance.

Additionally, IP Australia was represented by four members its executive, including newly appointed Director General, Phillip Noonan. We thank IP Australia for its support of this event both in the past and in future years. We sincerely hope that with support from both sides, this tradition may long continue, and the camaraderie and goodwill in our industry continues to grow through these sporting and social engagements.

Formalities for the evening were kept very light with many speakers regaling of events from the past, the characters, the venues, the results the remarkable performances both on and off the sporting field.

The evening finished early for many, as there were hired buses to Nowra to be caught in the morning. This was a new addition to the event’s proceedings with the idea being that as many participants from both sides would share the bus and enjoy the company on the way to the venue.

Hearsay has it for those members of the Profession who continued on to try their luck at Canberra

Casino, the evening finished early for them also.

GolfThis year’s event was held at Nowra golf club, which had received a ridiculous amount of rain in the week preceding, including some 24 mm on the Friday prior to the Sunday event. The fact that the course was playable at all, was a credit to the ground staff. This is particularly so, given that all their hard work was merely to allow approximately 20 people to hack, plough, and dig their way around the rich green turf. However, the course conditions did allow golfers to amply demonstrate their underwater hockey skills.

A highlight of the course was a new type of hazard, known as the Pisces trap. Such a special greenside hazard comprises a conventional sand bunker complete with fingerlings swimming about in 5 cm of water. True story.

As usual, many of the attendees had undertaken the conventional Saturday evening approach to settling the nerves before a big round. Showing dedication to the cause, a strict diet of steak, red wine, 8 ball and ale was followed. Consequently, Sunday morning saw many people appear as a pale shadow of their former selves, both physically and golfing wise.

The result being that unfortunately, IP Australia retained the Commissioners Cup with a score of 2 1/2 to 1 1/2, their play in the wet conditions being quite remarkable given that Canberra has been in a drought for the last five years.

Silver Anniversary celebration of the great sporting exchange!re

port

IPTA

9

However, given that members of the Profession demonstrated skills such as hitting approach shots onto the club house roof, from some twenty meters away from the green in question, or hitting the ball into a car park for boat trailers, not actually visible from the course, it is no great surprise defeat beckoned.

Congratulations to the IP Australia golfers. We look forward to an improvement next year, starting

with handicap management rather than course management.

CricketTurning finally to the cricket, the original venue of choice was Wollongong. However, thanks to that Council’s watering policy of Monday’s only, “no exceptions”, we were not offered a ground, and nearby Nowra (in a different shire) was quickly called into action.

After numerous inspections of the flooded plain known as Nowra Sportsground, it was decided that the floating of a ball down the middle of a pitch could not be considered a legitimate delivery. Plan B was called into action. This consisted of a synthetic wicket upon a windblown hilltop in Nowra, which allowed players to change their flippers for more conventional sandshoes. I wonder if Woollongong Council watered on the Monday?

IP Australia won the toss and elected to bat. A very competitive total of 204 was made. Solid batting by opener Rhys Munzel, 54 n.o., and Damien Triffet making 79, including 6 sixes were the main contributors.

Best bowling for the Profession was by Mark Dunstan, finishing with the figures of 4/27. Having bowled well all day, after taking a wicket in the closing overs, Mark announced “whilst you can take wickets at the end, you can also be made to look very silly, very quickly”. Mark was subsequently dispatched for 14 runs in the next over. Sage words indeed. Mark had very little support in the bowling stakes during the day, with the next best figures being 2/19 for Mark Williams amongst a mixed exhibition of pie throwing.

Noteworthy was that Tony Ward’s deft spin and deception wasn’t clearly understood by IP Australia’s batsman. However, his bowling on a wet wicket certainly was well appreciated. Batsman regularly adopting the aerial method of attack, heartened in the knowledge that the Profession had (repeatedly) demonstrated it couldn’t catch a cold, let alone a scorching red pill. Tony finished with the figures of no wicket for 33. Perhaps not the ideal match to retire on. Will we see more comebacks than John Farnham and Nellie Melba put together?

Highlights in the field included Andrew Lee’s terrier like willingness to retrieve the ball from all parts of the ground, only to realise that much like the terrier there is a difference between fetching, and throwing the ball right from the boundary with 50+ metres to throw. However the term “custard arm” from his team mates was a trifle harsh, nothing like team spirit.

Other outstanding efforts include Mark Williams’ catching a crowd killer on the boundary and publicly making out as if it didn’t smart. Funny, how one could hear the call of the crow as Mark caught the ball.

report

IPTA

10

However, the real highlight came from Victor Portelli, General Manager of Patents at IP Australia, catching out colleague Robert Bartram on the boundary using the Benny Hill approach to fielding – i.e a squinted eye followed by the one handed grope. Victor had graciously offered to play for the Profession in order to balance the numbers. This would leave him with an interesting dilemma, should the game become close and he was the last man in with a few runs to get.

Other honourable mentions go to Andrew Butler who was “volunteer” wicket keeper. Who would have thought that saying “well I did it once when I was 13” would get you the job. I am guessing there were a lot of things that you did once at 13 that you don’t do anymore Mr Butler.

Chasing 204, the Profession set out with Williams and Mark O’Malley opening, and a steady 26 run partnership ensured (many thanks to Mr O’Malley, who at a moment’s notice, read - phone call late Sunday evening, drove to Nowra to help out). The runs were being whittled away, yet so were the wickets. So much so that the off-field tension was rising, with an unnamed Attorney requiring an excursion to Nowra to buy a three pack of y-fronts. The old boxers apparently don’t do much for holding the “abdominal protector” in position. However, with three children, the author suspects there may no longer be a need to protect the “abdominal” region for said unnamed Attorney from Brisbane.

The game kicked on. 1/81 became 3/142 and 6/172 after 34 overs. Suddenly there was tension over the possible outcome, could we lose from here? At this thought, Chris Jordan had to sit down, dressed in his whites and cricket pads and unpack the lap top. Who takes a lap top to the cricket, keeps it in their bag until they are next into bat and then unpacks it for all to see? Chris, I am afraid that Wikipedia or Googling “how to bat” weren’t going to help at this stage of proceedings.

Fortunately, by this point in time, Mark Williams had made 97 (thereby maintaining a ridiculous average around 100 over the past 6 or so years) which was surely enough to guide the Profession to the W. Added to this was the steadying influence and experience of Andrew Butler (24 n.o.) and a contribution by Tony Lollis (15) late in the innings. This saw the Profession home, finishing with 7/205 after 38 overs. Victor Portelli was also suitably relieved, avoiding having to bat with the game in the balance with Damacles sword dangling overhead.

Bowling for IP Australia, best figures were had by the wily Brendon Bourke playing his twentieth game, finishing with 2/19, along with Clinton McArthur with 2/26.

The traditional celebratory dinner followed with players from both sides mixing to swap war stories over the day’s events. The evening concluded with presentations, including the Reg Wray Trophy for the man of the match, which this year went to Mark Williams for his outstanding batting of 97 runs, a few wickets, and a great catch. Well done Mark, feel free to carry on same next year.

Thanks must go to Rhys Munzel of IP Australia for organising this year’s event. Fantastic job for his first time, having to organise restaurants, buses, two grounds and twenty odd blokes to be at the same places at the same time - the hardest bit. Special mention must also go to Robert Bartram of IP Australia who demonstrated unparalleled dedication by flying in from Geneva to Nowra on the Sunday afternoon in order to play on Monday. Meanwhile, the Profession was struggling to put together a team with several hundred members only one and a half hours up the road.

For the remaining off field details, what happens on tour……….

Next year venue: destination unknown

Cheers

Lars Koch

repo

rt Silver Anniversary celebration of the great sporting exchange!

oddfellow

11

Dübendorf, 4 July 2008

Demotion…

I am no longer Head of the Patents Department here. “Aha!” you may say, “they came to their senses, did they?”

Well, they may have indeed done so, but they were kind enough not to say so – and anyway, following the fine

example of pollies in general., would they ever admit to failure or misjudgement? The powers that be suddenly

realised that I would be 61 on my next birthday (now past), and that some succession planning was in order. So our

new hire became the boss. John is an old friend from the days of Sandoz in Basel in the 1990s, and we’ve always

got on famously. So, I get to keep the same salary and same bonus and someone else referees the fights between

the girls. What could be better?

In any case, John is much better at the management business than I ever will be. He has that important managerial

predilection for suits and ties. I can’t remember how many suits he has (I think it’s 12). I, on the other hand, don’t

own a suit and don’t ever intend to, and I have a pathological dislike of ties. I have an emerald green one, which I

wear on St. Patrick’s Day, and my “battle flag”, the tie of the IPTA, which I wear for hearings at the EPO, and that’s it.

Navigating the corporate shoals is something that generally doesn’t bother patent attorneys unduly, as we are

individual specialists, performing a particular function. Nevertheless, we are not totally immune to corporate

idiocies. Take, for example, the annual assessment (please, please take it!). This has to be done against quantifiable

goals. Now this makes perfect sense for sales people (“My goal is to increase my sales by 20% this year”, “My

goal is to win a major new customer this year”) or production people (“My goal is to get this new product into

production this year”). But patent attorneys? What goal can we possibly have but to do the same job as last year,

only better? The same can be said of research. How does one quantify “setting sail in the expectation of a miracle”

(“Oddfellow”, December 2007)? Jack Lubbock, the Assistant Research Manager at Dulux in the 1970s, a man who

detested personnel (HR these days) departments and all their works, once put down a goal that was something

along the lines of having 1.47 original ideas per month. I was fortunate in that my old boss, the Company legal

head, had as much time for this system as I did. He came once to see me in my first year at Givaudan, and the

performance interview consisted of him asking me, “What did you do this year?” I never saw him again in this

capacity. However, the Research management, whose premises we occupy and who are our major customers, are

more insistent, so, er, creative thinking will be called for. Such an incredible waste of time.

We’ve been trying to recruit a new biotech attorney to replace our departed one. This has so far proved impossible.

We put ads in the CIPA Journal and the OJEPO, but we got only one nibble. So, where is everyone? One American of

German ancestry and wanting to return to Germany looked vaguely promising, but then we found that he didn’t want

to get his hands dirty with drafting and prosecution, he saw himself as the middleman between draftspeople in private

practice and research, so that was that. Wonder where everyone has gone? So, we may have to find ourselves a

student for training. The ETH Zürich (Zürich’s famous Federal Institute of Technology) runs a highly-regarded IP diploma

course. Perhaps we could get someone from there –our now departed attorney started off there.

IPTAod

dfel

low

12

Every time I think that the USPTO can’t possibly get any worse, it turns round and proves me wrong. Recently

we’ve had some examinations that have not only hit rock-bottom but have also already dug half-way to you.

Some of the stuff I’ve recently received has gone beyond the USPTO’s normal mixture of complete incompetence

and staggering stupidity to downright dishonesty. In many cases, it is clear that the Examiner has not even

bothered to read the material presented, otherwise s/he could not possibly have come to the particular

conclusion. Our US agents confess to writing the standard “Yours respectfully” between gritted teeth. There

have always been such Examiners in the USPTO (I have fond memories of our US agent in the days of Dulux

describing one Examiner’s character by saying that there hadn’t been a marriage in the family for the last five

generations). However, the number of such Examiners has apparently suddenly increased.

Is it partially because the USPTO is apparently now full of what I guess one could call “new Americans”?

Judging by the names of some of the Examiners, I have this suspicion that the USPTO is actually a division of

Guantánamo Bay, where prisoners are tortured mercilessly by being forced to read patent applications and

draft responses, so they’re taking it out on us. This is partially because young Americans want to earn big

money, so they seek to become investment bankers, hedge fund managers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, etc. and

definitely not scientists. So, the US has to import them. Our Flavours R&D facility in Cincinnati has 20-odd (very)

nationalities. The R&D Head there likes this cosmopolitan flavour very much, but also says that it’s a necessity.

He related how, in a previous life, he ran an R&D establishment on the East Coast, and was challenged by the

local authorities for hiring too many “foreigners”. He was happy to hire Americans, he said to them – “but you

find them for me!” They came back several months later and admitted defeat.

The USPTO has also been hit by the double whammy of far too much work to do and fewer staff with which to do it.

Moreover, our US agent tells us that there has been a big loss of experienced, middle-ranking Examiners, the ones

on which the office relies to be supervising Examiners and pass on their experience to the new kids. This hole in

the middle may be another reason for the crumbling standards of the USPTO. However, the attitude of the USPTO’s

political masters seems to be “steady as she sinks”. The US Commissioner of Patents has recently described the

US patent system as “the envy of the world”. I can only assume that this is a reflection of the Bush Administration

passion for inventing its own reality and redefining things to suit the desired perception. Thus, as it can’t possibly be

torture because “torture” means nine-tenths killed, whereas you only half-killed him, “laughing stock” is redefined

as “envy”. In a family newsletter, we shall not comment on the pronunciation of the gentleman’s surname by some

US attorneys who are quite embarrassed at the performance of their patent office. But then he is just another

politically-appointed apparatchik, who probably needed a training course in the spelling of the word “patent”.

European examination standards remain higher (well, let’s face it, the only way the USPTO can go is up), but

there have been some worrying signs there too. I recently had an Examiner try to make a novelty-destroying

argument out of a feature in a prior art drawing, which feature was not actually identified anywhere. He just

assumed that the feature was what he wanted it to be and built the argument around it. Again the EPO is under

enormous pressure to get the stuff out the door. In addition, it has the problem of getting Examiners (who are

ideally proportionally recruited from all of the Contracting States) who can handle the three official languages. All

the recent Contracting States have been eastern European, and none has an EPO official language as a national

language. So, how many, say, Polish or Slovenian Examiners are competent in English, French and German? I

think we can prepare for more substandard examinations.

Going back to America, because of the sheer volume of utter nonsense and sheer humbug of all kinds emanating

from one part of the northern end of the continent, it tends to be overlooked that there’s another rather large

bit of America, which also has patents. It presents problems of a rather different kind. Our US people are

seeking to sell a technology. This came up at National Phase entry time for the associated patent applications,

so the potential buyer was asked where it wished to have patent cover – and on the wish list was Guatemala,

oddfellow

13

Honduras and Costa Rica. My heart sank; veterans of our profession will be well aware of the inverse relationship

between size and significance of country and volume and sheer awkwardness of formalities, especially anywhere in

Latin America. At least all three were in the PCT. Well, sort of. It transpired that our International Filing Date was 5 days

before Guatemala’s accession took effect. No problems, said the Guatemalan agent, you can still file a Guatemalan

application, provided you do it within one year of the International Publication.

A bigger problem arose in the one where problems were least expected, Costa Rica. Costa Rica is the politically stable

one, the one which, in a region famed for military coups, doesn’t even have an army to have one, and the longest

Central American PCT member. But they couldn’t be contacted. Nothing worked, fax, e-mail, even ‘phone. In the end,

we had to contact them via our Mexican agent. I finally got an explanation that (a) I had tried to contact them on a

National holiday (which seemed to be as impossible as trying to contact someone in Melbourne between 11 and

quarter past on the first Tuesday in November), (b) the e-mail address wasn’t working, and (c) all the telephone and fax

local codes had just changed. This was delivered in a sort of pained tone that suggested that I should have known all

this, although the agent’s website reflected none of it. The application was filed on the last day of the 30 months.

And then there are the forms and their completion – oh yes, the forms… Guatemala is not a Hague Convention

signatory, so consular legalisation was necessary. This was made more complex by the fact that the inventors were in

three different places (Switzerland, USA and Australia (one has just retired there). However, another level of complexity

was added by the fact that the inventions arose as a joint project, one of the inventors was a university researcher in

Alabama, he thought he had been hard done by, and a lawsuit was possible. So, we were forbidden to communicate

directly with him, but had to go through the media of Givaudan North America legal head and his lawyer.

Now Americans, being a generally insular race, sometimes appear to have difficulty in grasping that there actually is a

world outside the USA (just check any local US news channel for confirmation) and also grasping that that world may

do things in a manner not quite matching the perfect US way. This also applies to their lawyers; I once encountered a

US lawyer who regretted that he couldn’t help us, because this Apostille business was nasty and foreign, like the metric

system and cars that do better than 10 gallons to the mile, and had nothing to do with the USA. I had to send him the

appropriate link to the website of the US State Department. Anyway, having sent detailed instructions on how it’s done

– notarised signature, certification by county court, certification by the State Secretary of Alabama and legalisation by

the Consulate in Miami (which handles certifications for Alabama) – I duly got the document back – with the Apostille.

Fortunately, although the Apostille was wrong for Guatemala, it is a form of State Secretary certification (the State

Secretaries are the ones entitled to apply the Apostille in the USA), and the Guatemalan Consul in Miami confirmed by

‘phone that he would be happy to legalise it (I got the impression that they are happy to legalise a document that had

been certified to county court level). So all was well. Mind you, I’m not terribly convinced as to the value of patents in

Central America, but ours not to reason why.

I have the privilege of working with some very clever people. The labs down the corridor are staffed by chemists some

of whom are quite brilliant, and who have forgotten more about the subject than I ever learned. I get to check their

published papers for correct English usage and I am always amazed by their ingenuity, much of which is beyond my

comprehension, once the Knoevenagel condensations and Claisen rearrangements start flowing. Much of the work

involves making specific stereochemical versions of compounds. Fragrances are like pharmaceuticals in that it’s often

the shape of the molecule that is the key thing, and some chemically identical molecules can have quite different

shapes. Smell, it will be remembered, doesn’t exist in reality, it’s the brain’s perception of electrochemical signals

forwarded by receptors in your nose in response to their encountering fragrant substances. Thus, one substance can

smell 50 times stronger than a chemically identical substance with a different arrangement of the atoms in space,

simply because one mates better with the receptors. The discovery of this mechanism led to the award of the 2004

Nobel Prize for Medicine to Richard Axel and Linda Buck.

IPTA

14

oddf

ello

w Sometimes the publications have a lighter side, and one of our folk recently produced a fascinating investigation

into what is probably the world’s most famous perfume, Chanel No.5. For anyone interested, the paper may be

found in the October 2007 issue of Perfumer & Flavorist. However, the potted version goes something like this. The

origins of Chanel No.5 appear to lie in Czarist Russia, where, in the years before the Revolution, a fragrance called

Rallet No.1 was available. When the Revolution came, many of the Russian aristocracy fled to France and ended

up in Biarritz on the French Atlantic coast, where one Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel had a boutique. It was here that

Coco and Rallet No.1 first met, and the rest, as they say, is history. It’s rather more convoluted than that, and full

credit goes to Dr. Philip Kraft, perfume enthusiast extraordinaire, for teasing out the various threads of the story. In

addition, Philip actually has a go at reconstituting what may be the original formula. (Unlike many other fragrances,

Chanel No.5 is not made by a fragrance company such as Givaudan, but by Chanel itself, to a formula that includes

many exotic (read “expensive”) ingredients). What does a perfume formula look like? Like this:

Now you see why we don’t try to patent perfumes!

IPTA

15

IPTA NOTICES TO MEMBERS VIA EMAIL 05/05/08 to 05/09/08Date Subject

05-May-08 2009 NSW Law Society Diary

06-May-08 APAA Inaugural Annual Day Meeting - 20 June 2008

12-May-08 Alan Geoffrey McKee

13-May-08 Alan Geoffrey McKee - funeral details

13-May-08 Monash Law School - Postgraduate Courses

14-May-08 IPTA Sydney Xmas Lunch

15-May-08 IPTA Newsletter - April 2008

15-May-08 Director General of WIPO

16-May-08 Opportunities to work with IPRIA on patent research project

19-May-08 Personal Property Securities Bill-Seminar Series 2008

21-May-08 Patents and Trade Marks Amendment Regulations 2008

23-May-08 IPRIA/IPTA Seminars on Privilege

02-Jun-08 Improvements to IP Australia’s Customer Service

06-Jun-08 Announcement of New IPTA Website

12-Jun-08 IPRIA/IPTA Seminars on Privilege

23-Jun-08 Young IPTA - YIPTA

23-Jun-08 IP Australia Submission - National Innovation System

23-Jun-08 Patents and Trade Marks Legislation Amendment Regulations 2008

25-Jun-08 IPRIA/IPTA Seminars on Privilege - Presentations

02-Jul-08 auDA’s Industry Competition Advisory Panel Releases Issues Paper

15-Jul-08 Young IPTA - YIPTA

22-Jul-08 IPRIA Director

22-Jul-08 New Zealand Patents Bill

22-Jul-08 Law Institute of Vic Diary 2009

24-Jul-08 Passing of Gerlinde Beamish

24-Jul-08 LexisNexis IP Law & Practice Conference

25-Jul-08 Hon Judge Fysh Presentation

25-Jul-08 Media Release - IP Australia Recognised as an International Search Authority by the USPTO

01-Aug-08 IPRIA / IPTA Joint Seminar - Dr Noel Byrne

07-Aug-08 Presentation by Clive Elliott - Review of Recent Developments in NZ

13-Aug-08 Venue Change Clive Elliott Presentation

14-Aug-08 Malcolm Royal Prize 2009

15-Aug-08 IPTA 2009 Conference

15-Aug-08 Mr Steve Wilson

20-Aug-08 Mr Steve Wilson - Funeral Details

25-Aug-08 Presentation by Clive Elliott - Review of Recent Developments in NZ

27-Aug-08 Presentation by His Honour Judge Michael Fysh QC SC

01-Sep-08 Australia and Korea Reach Historic Agreement

01-Sep-08 Issues Paper on Patentable Subject Matter

04-Sep-08 Expanded Program 18 September 2008 IPTA Seminar

05-Sep-08 Hosting IPTA Seminars

05-Sep-08 Call for nominations for election to auDA board

05-Sep-08 Passing of P Matthews & T Kuhanandan

notice

IPTA Advertisements

Houlihan2

Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys

PATENT ATTORNEY

EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR A CHEMIST

Houlihan2 is a dynamic, innovative firm, which has an enviable

portfolio of clients. We are seeking an ambitious, highly motivated individual, who has a view to long term prospects, to join our well-established Chemical/ Pharmaceutical practice. We offer a friendly working environment with a strong emphasis on unparalleled client service. The successful candidate will have an excellent opportunity to learn from and work alongside experienced attorneys in all areas of Patent & Trade Mark Attorney practice in Australia and New Zealand. The position will include drafting, prosecution, conducting oppositions before IP Australia and IPONZ, providing IP infringement opinions and running litigation matters before both the Australian and New Zealand Courts. The position will afford a high level of autonomy and responsibility. The Candidate should preferably have a Ph.D. in the Chemical area and relevant Post-Doctoral and/or industry experience is desired. Qualified or near-qualified attorneys only need apply. The salary package will be highly competitive and reflective of the candidate’s experience. The firm is able to offer excellent equity partnership prospects. Interested persons should forward a resumé and a brief covering letter marked Private and Confidential to: Dr. Elizabeth Houlihan FRACI FIPTA FICPI on: elizabeth@houlihan2.com

Houlihan2

Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys

PATENT ATTORNEY

EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR A CHEMIST

Houlihan2 is a dynamic, innovative firm, which has an enviable

portfolio of clients. We are seeking an ambitious, highly motivated individual, who has a view to long term prospects, to join our well-established Chemical/ Pharmaceutical practice. We offer a friendly working environment with a strong emphasis on unparalleled client service. The successful candidate will have an excellent opportunity to learn from and work alongside experienced attorneys in all areas of Patent & Trade Mark Attorney practice in Australia and New Zealand. The position will include drafting, prosecution, conducting oppositions before IP Australia and IPONZ, providing IP infringement opinions and running litigation matters before both the Australian and New Zealand Courts. The position will afford a high level of autonomy and responsibility. The Candidate should preferably have a Ph.D. in the Chemical area and relevant Post-Doctoral and/or industry experience is desired. Qualified or near-qualified attorneys only need apply. The salary package will be highly competitive and reflective of the candidate’s experience. The firm is able to offer excellent equity partnership prospects. Interested persons should forward a resumé and a brief covering letter marked Private and Confidential to: Dr. Elizabeth Houlihan FRACI FIPTA FICPI on: elizabeth@houlihan2.com

Patent Attorneys... we’ve got you covered!

Parmia Insurance is an Award Winning Insurance Broker tailoring insurance solutions for

professionals throughout Australia.

Following extensive research and negotiations, we are proud to offer an Exclusively Tailored

Broad Professional Indemnity Insurance Facility for Patent Attorneys. This policy, secured by

none less than Lloyds of London, has been written specifically for Patent Attorneys at a highly

competitive cost, and is only available through Parmia Insurance.

Features of our policy include:

• Full Civil Liability Policy Wording

• Matching retroactive cover to your existing policy

• Libel and/or Slander

• Contractual Liability

• Trade Practices Act (Misleading or Deceptive Conduct)

• Intellectual Property

• Sub-contractors and Consultants (Your Liability)

• Innocent non-disclosure

• Loss of Documents

• Inquiry Costs up to A$100,000

• Dishonesty of employees

• Joint Venture Extension (Your Liability)

• Territorial/Jurisdictional Limits: Worldwide (USA and/or Canada subject to referral)

For full details, please contact Helen Kristensen of Parmia Insurance:

Phone: 1800 PARMIA (1800 727642) Fax: (07) 33820676

Email: helen@parmia.com.au Web: www.parmiainsurance.com.au

Patent Attorneys... we’ve got you covered!

Parmia Insurance is an Award Winning Insurance Broker tailoring insurance solutions for

professionals throughout Australia.

Following extensive research and negotiations, we are proud to offer an Exclusively Tailored

Broad Professional Indemnity Insurance Facility for Patent Attorneys. This policy, secured by

none less than Lloyds of London, has been written specifically for Patent Attorneys at a highly

competitive cost, and is only available through Parmia Insurance.

Features of our policy include:

• Full Civil Liability Policy Wording

• Matching retroactive cover to your existing policy

• Libel and/or Slander

• Contractual Liability

• Trade Practices Act (Misleading or Deceptive Conduct)

• Intellectual Property

• Sub-contractors and Consultants (Your Liability)

• Innocent non-disclosure

• Loss of Documents

• Inquiry Costs up to A$100,000

• Dishonesty of employees

• Joint Venture Extension (Your Liability)

• Territorial/Jurisdictional Limits: Worldwide (USA and/or Canada subject to referral)

For full details, please contact Helen Kristensen of Parmia Insurance:

Phone: 1800 PARMIA (1800 727642) Fax: (07) 33820676

Email: helen@parmia.com.au Web: www.parmiainsurance.com.au

Trainee Patent Attorney/Patent Attorney

Telephone +61 2 9777 1111 | Facsimile +61 2 9241 4666

www.ShelstonIP.com | Sydney | Brisbane | Newcastle

Patent Attorneys play a crucial role in the protection of ideas and inventions developedby their clients – from the formative stages through to eventual commercialisation.

Shelston IP is one of the largest and most respected IP firms in Australia. “Mind to market” reflects a crucial difference betweenShelston IP and other firms. Our thorough understanding of the processes involved in converting ideas and innovations intointellectual assets, and a deep appreciation of what it takes to commercialise those assets, sets us apart from our competitors.

We are currently seeking electrical engineering and mechanical engineering professionals of all levels to join our growing practice.

Shelston IP offers a friendly environment and we support our staff in their continued education. We also offer long-term career development opportunities and the chance to work with experts in the field.

If this sounds like you, APPLY NOW!

To apply, send your cover letter and resume to Megan Harrison, HR Manager via email at careers@shelstonip.com or via post to Level 21, 60 Margaret Street, Sydney 2000. Your application will be treated in strict confidence.

If you have further enquiries, please visit our website www.shesltonip.com or contact us on (02) 9777 1111.

RequirementsThe successful candidate for the above roles will be able to demonstrate the following:• Excellent written and verbal

communication skills• A high level of accuracy

and attention to detail

• Strong client service skills• Time management and

organisational skills

• An interest in technology, new ideasand developing your knowledge

• The ability to work as part of a team.

Trainee Patent AttorneyYou will be mentored by Senior Practitioners within the team as you gain exposure to a wide range of technologies and technology companies in Australia and overseas.

Your day will fly as you:

• Assist in the preparation, drafting and filing of patent applications

• Assist in the provision of patent oppositions and infringement advice

• Conduct patent searches as required• Assist in the provision of other IP advice

In addition to an electrical or mechanical engineering degree,the successful candidate will undertake further studies toqualify as a Registered Australian Patent Attorney. Progresstowards the completion, or the near completion, of theMasters of Industrial Property will be highly regarded.

Patent AttorneyA degree in mechanical engineering plus 1-2 years postregistration patent experience is required. Working closely with senior practitioners, you will work with a large local and overseas client base and be exposed to interesting and diverse work.

Your duties will include:

• Responding to client needs in a professional manner• Maintaining and developing existing relationships

with clients• Assisting in the implementation of improvements

to team practices and practice development

OKA6660 SHE IPTA A4 recruitment ad.qxd:Layout 1 25/8/08 2:36 PM Page 1

Contact details: To apply please forward your application and resume to Gabrielle Eskdale, National HR & Office Services Manager, via e-mail at recruitment@davies.com.au. Mail can be sent to GPO Box 4387, Melbourne 3001 Australia. If you would like to discuss this role further, please contact Gabrielle Eskdale on +61 3 9254 2777.

Melbourne I Sydney I Brisbane I Newcastle I Canberra I www.davies.com.au

Please visit our website at www.davies.com.au for further information about our firm and the careers being offered.

Davies Collison Cave is Australia’s leading firm of patent and trade mark attorneys.

In addition to your academic and industry qualifications, to be successful in a career as a patent attorney with Davies Collison Cave you need to be:

an excellent communicator with a strong command of the English language committed to providing clients with quality advice and service at all timesable to readily assimilate and critically analyse information and think laterally able to clearly and concisely communicate in writingwell organised and self motivatedinterested in the practical application of technology

You will work closely with partners to develop your skills and establish relationships with our clients with a view to assuming responsibility for a portfolio of the team’s work. You will be paid a salary commensurate with experience.

Your day to day work will involve all aspects of private Patent Attorney practice including liaising with inventors and corporate clients, conducting searches, providing patentability opinions, drafting Patent specifications, providing opinions in relation to infringement and prosecuting patent applications.

••••••

Sydney and BrisbanePatent Attorney / Advanced Trainee Patent Attorney - Engineer

Sydney orMelbournePatent Attorney / Advanced Trainee Patent Attorney - Chemical

Our engineering team has a large and diverse client base and we are now recruiting for two qualified patent attorneys to join the team in our Sydney and Brisbane offices. This is an opportunity to develop your expertise by working with and learning from highly experienced practitioners.

Qualifications and Experience:a good degree in engineering (mechanical, electrical, aerospace, civil, computer, mining or similar)current registration as an Australian Patent Attorney or approaching completion of studies towards registrationindustry experience or post graduate qualifications may be advantageous

•

•

•

SydneyPatent Attorney / Advanced Trainee Patent Attorney - BiotechnologistDavies Collison Cave has a large client base in the biotechnology field. We are now recruiting for a qualified or part qualified patent attorney to join the Life Sciences team in our Sydney office.

This is an opportunity to develop your expertise by working with and learning from the leaders in the Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology field.

Qualifications and Experience:a higher degree in the biological sciencescurrent registration as an Australian Patent Attorney or partly completed studies towards registrationindustry or post doctoral experience may be advantageous

•

•

•

General Requirements

We recognise that the technical and legal expertise of our professionals provides the foundation for unparalleled service to our clients. You will be working alongside like-minded and motivated professionals and some of the leading patent attorneys in Australia. We offer challenging and rewarding careers in a supportive and friendly environment.

Current Opportunities

Davies Collison Cave has the largest pharmaceuticals and organic chemistry practice in Australia. We are now recruiting for a qualified or part qualified patent attorney to join the Organic and Pharmaceuticals Chemistry team in our Melbourne or Sydney office.

Qualifications and Experience:a higher degree in synthetic organic chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutical science or similar. industry experience will also be valuedcurrent registration as an Australian Patent Attorney or partly completed studies towards registration

•

•

•

Invent Resources Pty Ltd

150 Victoria RoadGladesville, NSW 2111

p: 02 9879 0706 f: 02 9879 0445

e: info@inventresources.com.auw: www.inventresources.com.au

Position Available

Invent Resources is a specialised rm who provides a range of services to assist in the development of original products through intellectual property and design.

We are now offering a unique opportunity for an experienced Patent and Trademark Attorney who is a seeking a part time/contractual position with a view to full time employment.

We foresee this role to be assigned to a candidate who has an engineering and/or mechanical background; however other backgrounds will be considered.

This position will involve all aspects of Patent and Trademark Attorney practice including liaising with independent inventors and corporate clients, conducting searches, providing patentability assessments and drafting patent speci cations.

The successful applicant will be required to work closely with our design team to ensure the intellectual property is consistent with the projects’ design and development.

Rate/salary is negotiable.

All information will remain strictly con dential.

Please forward your CV by e-mail to jobs@inventresources.com.au or fax to 02 9879 0445.