Clare has particular expertise in intellectual property litigation, with extensive experience in patent revocation and infringement proceedings (including pharmaceutical patent injunctions) and patent oppositions, trade mark infringement and revocation proceedings, non-use applications and oppositions, and copyright litigation, as well as litigation concerning the misuse of confidential information in the pharmaceutical context.   

Before coming to the bar, Clare worked at Allens, Corrs and at Powell Gilbert in London. Clare is the President of IPSANZ, and the Treasurer and Chair of the continuing professional development committee at AIPPI Australia. 

Clare is listed in Doyle's Guide to Leading Victorian Intellectual Property Barristers (2023) and in Doyle’s Leading Intellectual Property Junior Counsel – Australia (2022) as a pre-eminent junior counsel.

She has been listed in Chambers Intellectual Property: The Bar as a Band 1 practitioner since 2020.  Her review reads:

“Operating across the IP spectrum, Clare Cunliffe is particularly well known for her "encyclopedic knowledge of patent law and patent decisions in Australia and beyond, and her ability to bring that knowledge to bear in cases." This makes her "a first choice for large, complex patent infringement and validity proceedings," it being further noted that "leading IP senior counsel tend to choose her as their junior." More than one interviewee places her in the front rank of junior counsel practising at the IP Bar.”

 and in the Legal 500 Asia-Pacific (2020) as a Leading Junior.  Her review reads:

“Her knowledge of patent law and her ability to grasp complex technology sets her apart in this field. Clare is a leading junior in patent, trade mark, copyright, consumer law and competition matters.”

Recent Cases

Lundbeck v Sandoz (acting for Lundbeck in a long running dispute as to escitalopram, which is presently in the High Court of Australia).

Juno v Celgene (acting for Celgene in relation to Revlimid, in a proceeding involving a compound patent and seven method of treatment patents).

Merck v Sandoz (acting for Merck in relation to its compound patent for sitagliptin).

ACCC v AFG (acting for the ACCC against Australasian Food Group in a case where the ACCC alleges AFG engaged in exclusive dealing)

MMD Design and Consultancy Limited v Camco Engineering Pty Ltd (acting for MMD Design and Consultancy Limited, initially in a preliminary discovery application and then in patent infringement and revocation proceedings).

ACCC v Megasave (acting for the ACCC against Megasave in circumstances where the ACCC alleges that Megasave made false representations to potential franchisees).

Toolgen v Fisher (acting for Mr Fisher in a case about the patentability of gene editing technology, involving novel issues of support and enablement).

VMS v Sarb (acting for Sarb in a long running dispute concerning parking technology).

Sportsbet Pty Ltd v Crownbet Pty Ltd (acting for Sportsbet in a dispute about Crownbet’s right to use the name Sportingbet.  Sportsbet obtained an injunction)

Samsung Bioepis v Fresenius (acting for Samsung Bioepis in a dispute against Fresenius relating to Fresenius’ patent for a formulation of adalimumab, which resulted in Fresenius surrendering its patent).

Teva v Boehringer Ingelheim (acting for Teva in a dispute against Boehringer Ingelheim concerning three patents protecting tiotropium).

Roche v Sandoz (acting for Roche in a dispute concerning rituximab, where Roche obtained interlocutory injunctive relief against Sandoz based on four method of treatment patents)

Pokemon Company International, Inc v Redbubble Ltd (acting for Pokemon in a copyright case against Redbubble).

Further details regarding Clare’s experience can be found on the List G Barristers’ website via following link - List G Barristers Profile 

References on request.

*Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards legislation