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
-
Southern Cross Industrial Group PL v Mickala Mining Maintenance PL (Liability Trial) [2025] FCA 1363
PATENTS – construction – invalidity – whether claims 1 and 4 of innovation patent lack novelty – factual dispute concerning public availability – whether lack of innovative step – whether sole director of company authorised infringement of claims – whether sole director is liable as a joint tortfeasor – where claims 1 and 4 found…
-
Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia (No 13) [2025] FCA 1078
PATENTS – infringement – Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 122(1) – election between damages and account of profits – time of election – whether applicant should be compelled to make election before evidence is filed – balance between informed choice and efficient conduct of case – applicant ordered to make election within 21 days.
-
The NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887
The NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887
