PATENTS – innovation patent relating to hinges – infringement – validity – whether primary judge erred in the proper construction of the invention disclosed
PATENTS – validity – lack of clear and complete description – classical sufficiency – “relevant range” – s 40(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether primary judge erred in finding specifications did not enable skilled addressee to perform invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden
PATENTS – validity – lack of support – s 40(3) of the Act – comparison between invention specified in the claims and that described in the specification – technical contribution to the art
Related cases about Patents
-
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (17 August 2022)
Patents – Invention – Manner of manufacture – Where appellant manufactured electronic gaming machines (“EGMs”) – Where appellant owned four innovation patents concerning various embodiments of EGM – Where specification described claimed invention as combination of player interface, being physical features of EGM, and game controller, being computerised components interacting with player interface to implement…
