PATENTS – jump starter device for jump starting a depleted or discharged battery (eg in a vehicle) – priority date – where the patents in suit claimed an earliest priority date based on the filing date of a PCT application – where the cross-claimant contended that the patents were not entitled to the asserted priority date – whether, for each asserted claim, the invention in the claim was disclosed in the PCT application PATENTS – jump starter device for jump starting a depleted or discharged battery (eg in a vehicle) – novelty and inventive step –whether the claims in the patents in suit were anticipated by one or other of two documents – whether the claims in the patents in suit would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art in light of the common general knowledge (CGK) alone, or in light of the CGK together with one or other of two documents PATENTS – jump starter device for jump starting a depleted or discharged battery (eg in a vehicle) – best method – where the cross-claimant contended that the patentee had not disclosed the best method known to the patentee for performing the invention – whether the knowledge element was to be determined as at the international filing date or as at the filing date for the patents in suit PATENTS – jump starter device for jump starting a depleted or discharged battery (eg in a vehicle) – infringement – whether the impugned products infringed the claims in the patents in suit – construction issues – whether the claims required that the device automatically start upon satisfaction of preconditions – whether a product that is capable of operating in manual mode falls outside the scope of the claims – whether references to “USB” in the claims encompass USB-C, which had not been released as at the asserted priority date
Related cases about patent infringement
-
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Liability) [2022] FCA 1585
PATENTS – Applicant patentee of three method patents relating to digital mobile radios (‘DMR’) using Time Division Multiple Access (‘TDMA’) to divide frequency channel – disputed constructions – fair basing – inventive step – identification of inventive step in claims – manner of manufacture – stare decisis – whether Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v…
-
H Lundbeck A/S v Sandoz Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 740
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – patents – application for stay of remitted proceeding – where High Court upheld primary judge’s declaration that the respondent infringed the first applicant’s patent – where High Court made an order declaring that the first applicant is entitled to damages and pre-judgment interest and an order remitting the proceeding for the…
-
Novartis AG v Pharmacor Pty Limited [2023] FCA 804
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – patents – where in the principal proceeding the respondent alleges that the patent in suit does not disclose the best method of performing the invention – discovery – where applicants oppose the respondent’s proposed discovery category
