The IPKat

Terms like "at least one" or "one or more" are a common feature in patent claims. The long-running dispute, finally decided in Nalco Company v Cytec Industries Inc [2026] FCAFC 72, demonstrates that such terms should be used with caution, particularly where the inventive contribution resides in a mixture of elements and the specification does not sufficiently support the use of ...

How much publicity is needed before a trade mark applicant can no longer credibly deny knowledge of another party’s sign? In decision R2260/2025-4, the Board of Appeal (“BoA”) of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) had little difficulty concluding that the applicant for the EU trade mark “Truth Social” was fully aware of the highly publicised plans of Donal...

Another busy week ahead ...Another IP week has begun, and it’s time to check new events, developments and opportunities ahead. As always, do not forget to check our Events page on a regular basis too.EventsBeni Culturali, Proprietà Intellettuale e Sostegno Privato alla Cultura. Questioni Aperte e Prospettive, Milan (12 November 2026)On 12 November, the Istituto della Enciclopedi...

The Federal Court of Australia has finally weighed in on the Basmati rice saga. While this Kat was distracted by other curiosities, the judgment in APEDA v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 1125 was handed down in August. Justice Dowling dismissed the appeal, finding that the BASMATI certification mark was not capable of distinguishing goods certified by APEDA from other goods

The Federal Court of Australia recently found that a patent relating to the manufacturing process for Pfizer's ENBREL (etanercept) product was not infringed by the Respondents' involvement in manufacturing the biosimilar BRENZYS products in Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals Unlimited Company v Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd (Infringement and Validity) [2026] FCA 1244. The decision highl...