I have successfully acted for numerous clients over several decades in patent disputes in areas such as pharmaceutical compounds and processes, mining equipment, medical devices, business methods, methods of treatment, mobile telecommunications and 2-way radios, ink-jet cartridges, multi-valent vaccines, mechanical devices, heavy engineering and various consumer goods. I have decades of experience in acting in substantial multi-jurisdictional patent disputes for patentees and revokers, in the Federal Court, Full Federal Court and Australian Patent Office.

I advise numerous clients on strategic patent licensing issues and especially where relationships become strained or disintegrate and IP ownership disputes arise.

I am a registered trade mark attorney and manage the trade mark protection needs of a range of Australian and International clients. I have successfully acted for trade mark owners in numerous Federal Court trade mark disputes.

In conjunction with my Australian litigation expertise, I hold a Masters degree in computing, a diploma in IP Law and am qualified to practise in England and Wales. I put my computing Masters to use in regularly advising clients in IT disputes.

Career highlights

• I obtained the first judgment in Australia where a patent infringer was ordered to pay 'additional damages' due to the flagrancy of the infringement.
• Another of my patent clients obtained the first judgment in Australia to confirm that a 'spring board' injunction could be granted to prevent the sale of non-infringing products.
• I acted for Rio Tinto in its successful appeal to the Federal Court against a decision by IP Australia to refuse a patent application on three grounds for a method of processing ore.
• I successfully acted for Hytera Communications in its large Australian dispute with Motorola regarding three patents in respect to its 2-way radios
• I successfully acted for Sweet Rewards in its defence of a claim brought by Mars Australia in the Federal Court and on appeal in the Full Federal Court. The matter was cited by Asia IP as a ‘case of the year’.
• I lead our substantial Melbourne pro bono practice and regularly advise pro bono clients on their trade mark and copyright matters and have lead a successful urgent High Court challenge to invalidate sections of the Commonwealth's electoral legislation. The 4:3 finding of the High Court delivered the day after the hearing and shortly before a national election held the sections invalid and approximately 110,000 potential voters were able to enrol to vote.

Awards & recognition

• Leading Individual, Intellectual Property (Patents) - Chambers Asia Pacific: 2023 - 2016
  Clients say 'Robert is a strategic operator who understands the client's need as well as the best way to operate.' - Chambers Asia Pacific: 2023
  Robert Cooper is an 'expert in the field ' who 'partners with you to think outside the box and come up with solutions.' - Chambers Asia Pacific: 2022
• Leading Individual, Life Sciences- Chambers Asia Pacific: 2023 - 2021
  Asia Pacific Legal 500 (APL500) regards Robert Cooper as 'client-focused, pragmatic and having significant respect throughout the industry'
• Recommended – Intellectual Property, Best Lawyers: 2023 - 2009
• Recommended – Biotechnology Law, Best Lawyers: 2023 - 2018
• Leading individual, IAM1000, The World's Leading Patent Professionals: 2023- 2013
  Robert Cooper delivers 'a great combination of experience, technical skill and cost effectiveness. He has a very good ability to narrow down the fundamental issues at play and advise on them.' - IAM1000, The World's Leading Patent Professionals
  He is regarded as a 'calm, strategic thinker' - IAM1000, The World's Leading Patent Professionals
• Leading Individual, The International Who's Who Legal - Patents: 2022 - 2013
• Leading Individual, The International Who's Who Legal - Life Sciences: 2022 - 2015
• Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars Handbook (Australia): – Trade mark star, Patent star: 2023 - 2014
• Leading individual, WTR1000, The World's Leading Trademark Professionals: 2022 - 2017
  Robert Cooper is a 'bright strategic thinker' whose 'reliable and timely advice' covers branding, trademark disputes and a host of other IP issues - WTR 1000 – World Trade Mark Review.
  Robert Cooper is 'dedicated and determined, with brilliant technical legal skills' - WTR 1000 – World Trade Mark Review.
• Leading Individual, World IP Review: WIPR Leaders - Patent Leaders: 2022 - 2017
• Leading Individual, World IP Review: WIPR Leaders – Robert is also a leader in Life Sciences, Technology and Trade marks

Education
LLB (Hons), MSc, Dip IP, Registered Trade Marks Attorney

• Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ), member
• The Law Society of England and Wales, member
• American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), member
• Former National Secretary, board member and editor of the Licensing Executives Society of Australia and New Zealand (LESANZ)
• INTA
• AusBiotech, member

• Czech mate: Federal Court revokes Bohemia Crystal trade marks for lack of distinctiveness
  

  MinterEllison shares lessons for Australian trade mark owners from the Bohemia Crystal decision.

• Manners maketh the copyright infringer: Court awards $60,000 'additional damages' for defendants' behaviour in copyright case
  
• PBS damages claim lands in the High Court
  

  The High Court this week hears the Commonwealth's claim for PBS compensation in its patent injunction damages case against Sanofi.

• MinterEllison achieves landmark victory for Alphapharm in high stakes win
  

  Federal Court refuses to grant Sanofi interlocutory injunction to stop launch of insulin glargine injector pen.

• Australia's High Court introduces doctrine of exhaustion of patent rights
  

  A new High Court decision explores the fundamental nature of patent rights in Australia, in particular, the rights of a patentee following the first sale of a patented product. We explore what this means for patentees seeking to control the activities of downstream purchasers of patented products.

• A step in the right direction towards faster, cheaper patent litigation in Australia
  

  A Full Federal Court bench of prominent patent judges has refused Novartis leave to appeal from an order excluding evidence from three expert witnesses, on the basis that the evidence was duplicative of a fourth expert affidavit that was allowed. The decision is part of a shift towards more active case management, in pursuit of faster, cheaper patent litigation: Novartis v Pharmacor [2022] FCAFC 58.

• "Catch up" price reductions for PBS-listed medicines are coming – what should you be thinking about?
  

  Sponsors who anticipate that their PBS-listed medicines may be included in the indicative list of "catch up" price reductions on 1 July 2022 should start considering now whether to ask the Minister to intervene in any proposed reduction.

• Pump it (louder): Federal Court win in patent dispute
  

  UON is under water after losing its patent for a variable speed generator used for dewatering in the mining sector.

• MinterEllison successfully acts for Hytera in one of Australia's biggest ever patent cases
  

  In a pivotal dispute regarding digital mobile radios, the Federal Court of Australia has found in favour of Hytera Communications with respect to two of three patents that Motorola Solutions sought to enforce in a case that has been running since 2017. Hytera is a ing global provider of digital mobile radios.

   

• Court overturns injunction: Apotex out of pregabalin market
  

  The Pfizer-Apotex interlocutory conflict saw Justice Griffiths initially deny an injunction against Apotex's pregabalin product, defying trends in pharma patent cases. Pfizer's rare appeal led to the Full Federal Court reversing most aspects of the initial decision.

• Is trademark registration for a shape worth it?
  

  The value of shape marks in protecting branding investment is uncertain due to functional considerations and difficulty proving infringement. Clipsal's successful defense highlights the need to carefully assess the worth of seeking shape trademark registration.

• High Court considers distinctiveness of foreign words
  
• Exclusive patent licences and standing to sue – a green light for commercial 'work arounds'
  
• Is 'reproduction' for copyright infringement a chicken & egg debate?
  
• MinterEllison defends Calidad against claims by Epson
  

  In the recent Federal Court of Australia decision, Calidad has successfully defended claims of patent infringement (in part), trade mark infringement, breach of statutory duty relating to criminal provisions of the Trade Marks Act.

• What the Rokt decision tells us about patent eligibility for software inventions
  In a significant ruling, the Full Court has again weighed in on the patent eligibility of software inventions, overturning a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court and deciding that Rokt's marketing scheme is not patentable subject matter.
• Our contribution to international publication: The Law Reviews
  

  Members of MinterEllison's expert Intellectual Property team provide valuable insights into Australian Patent Litigation Law in a publication first.

   

• Copyright: 18 months of developments and decisions
  

  It's been an active and interesting 18 months in the ever-changing Australian copyright sphere. From copyright reform to copyright in compilations, from the dangers of litigation to the unlicensed use of stock photography, we've collated a summary of the more significant developments over that period which may be helpful or instructive when similar issues arise.

• ACCC claims Nurofen product range is false or misleading
  

  The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has instituted proceedings against the sponsor of Nurofen products, Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (Reckitt Benckiser), in the Federal Court of Australia (NSD180/2015).

• Trade mark ownership: the Insight scoop to avoid refusal
  

  The recent Full Federal Court decision of Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd highlights the danger of filing a trade mark application in the wrong name.

• Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (No 4) [2017] FCA 1345
  International politics, intrigue and vodka… the staples of any great James Bond movie.
• At all costs: Federal Court orders indemnity costs for rejecting settlement offer, but not for running weak patent claims
  

  Litigants can strategically use the threat of indemnity costs to optimise their position in patent proceedings: Vector v E-Chem [2022] FCA 519.

• Commonwealth loses appeal in its $325m Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme compensation claim
  

  We explore the implications of the Full Court decision in the Commonwealth's damages claim against Sanofi for enforcing an invalid patent.