Lawyers for litigation

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

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

  • Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents (No 3) [2024] FCA 212

    PATENTS – operation of 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – split decision of the High Court of Australia – where decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia affirmed – approach to be taken by single judge on remitter – whether Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents…

  • MSA 4×4 Accessories Pty Ltd v Clearview Towing Mirrors Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 24

    PATENTS – patent for apparatus for storing or holding items – claim construction – infringement – validity PATENTS – infringement – construction of claims – no infringement found PATENTS – validity – novelty – whether prior publications being patent and patent applications anticipated claimed invention PATENTS – validity – lack of inventive step – ground…

  • Novartis AG v Pharmacor Pty Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 963

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – patents – interlocutory application for question to be heard separately pursuant to r 30.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where proposed separate question concerns the relevant time at which a patent applicant’s knowledge of the best method is to be fixed for the purposes of s 40(2)(a) of…

Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0887For more information, see the original judgement.
Send this to a friend