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
-
Sanofi v Amgen Inc. [2023] FCA 264
PATENTS – whether order for discovery of documents should be made in appeal pursuant to s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether appellant should be granted leave to rely on experimental proof pursuant to r 34.50(2)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in said appeal Held: discovery refused – leave under r 34.50(2)(b) granted…
-
The Noco Company v Hong Kong Haowei Technology Co., Ltd. [2023] FCA 533
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – service out of the jurisdiction – substituted service – where the respondents are registered in Hong Kong and China – where the applicant claims that the respondents are infringing its Australian patents by conduct in Australia and seeks injunctive relief – where the applicant contends that it is not practicable to…
-
Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd (No 4) [2023] FCA 517
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE —– application for freezing orders against respondents to a proceeding for patent infringement and a third party —– third party holds security interests over intellectual property assets of first respondent and member of same group of companies as respondents —– liability previously determined in favour of applicant against respondents —– hearing on…
