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.


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.


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.