Looking Forward, page-47

I wasn't going to comment on this any further but since you don't seem to understand prior art, I feel that I need to.

Prior art does not require existing patents be registered in Australia. You don't seem to be able to comprehend this.

Published research, from anywhere in the world, that covers the methods or "innovations" that a patent is being sought for, are sufficient to render the application invalid, or to invalidate any patents that were applied for (and even potentially issued) after the publication of the material on which it infringes.

Additionally, prior art claims will generally examine in much greater detail and across a much broader range of areas than a simple patent search will ever reveal.

The claims that "they used a patent lawyer" or that you've "searched for existing Australian patents" in no way addresses the possibility, and indeed from communication with Dr Liudmila Yolshina in Russia, the claims that the patents are not original IP, and that the Russian Federation and Academy of Science are the owners of the IP in question.

P.s. Don't shoot the messenger. This is just passing on the findings of my research. You too could do this type of research if you chose to.