Editorial

摘要

Part 1 of Volume 24 of the AIPJ has four articles: two focus on current legal and ethical issues in relation to patents for biotechnological inventions; while the other two examine legal and policy issues relating to accessorial liability for authorising intellectual property infringements. The first article, by Professor Monotti of Monash Law School, is an examination of authorisation liability under s 13(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). As the author points out, while authorisation has a long history under copyright law, liability for authorising a patent infringement was introduced only in the 1990 Act. While the scope and meaning of authorisation of copyright infringements remains unsettled, especially since the High Court decision in Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Pty Ltd (2012) 86 ALJR 494, there is even more uncertainty under patent law, with some courts drawing analogies with copyright law while others rely on dictionary definitions. In a careful analysis, Monotti attributes these difficulties to an insufficient appreciation of the distinct legislative history of s 13(1), which suggests that it was never intended to change the pre-1990 law on accessorial liability. Accordingly, analogies with copyright law seem inapt.