PATENTS — two patents for methods, apparatuses and systems for vehicle detection and determination of vehicle overstay in time-limited parking space — wireless communication between subterraneous detection apparatus and above-ground detection collection apparatus
PATENTS — claims for infringement of claims against two respondents — infringement issues – cross-claim alleging invalidity — claims for additional damages
PATENTS — infringement — proper construction of claims — whether the first respondent’s vehicle overstay detection system used a wake-up signal — whether the claims include a method or system where the determination of vehicle overstay is made by the above-ground detection collection apparatus instead of the subterraneous detection apparatus
PATENTS — infringement — whether first respondent is liable for infringing acts because it has authorised those acts, or because it is a joint tortfeasor in relation to those acts — limitation period and s 120(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) — authorisation under s 13 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) — construction of Deed of Release dated 18 June 2014
PATENTS — infringement — claims for additional damages — whether infringements have been flagrant — whether infringing conduct repeated without restraint — whether benefit obtained because of infringing conduct — requirement to consider all matters appearing under s 122(1A) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
PATENTS — best method — whether patentee has described best method known to it of performing the invention — alleged failure by patentee to disclose transceiver (ASTRX2 transceiver) used by it and known to be the best transceiver for working the invention — advantages of ASTRX2 transceiver — identification of the invention
PATENTS — best method — whether patentee has described best method known to it of performing the invention — alleged failure by patentee to describe the antenna developed and used by it — nature and features of antenna — work performed by patentee in designing, developing and tuning antenna
PATENTS — sufficiency — whether the patentee has fully described the invention — alleged failure to describe antenna
PATENTS — entitlement — whether a person not named in the patent as an inventor was a co-inventor of the invention — whether work done by person with respect to antenna and Production Circuit Boards was a material contribution to the invention — whether, in any event, it would be just and equitable under s 138(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to make an order
PATENTS — inventive step — claim that invention obvious in light of common general knowledge — field of the invention — the content of common general knowledge — evidence of disadvantages of existing methods of detection of vehicle overstay — expert evidence in the field of electronic engineering — whether skilled addressee would be led directly as a matter of course to the invention
PATENTS — fair basis — whether claims not involving a wake-up signal fairly based on matter in the specifications of the patents — test for fair basis — relevance of previous decision of this Court in Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd (trading as Database Consultants Australia) (No 2) [2013] FCA 395; (2013) 101 IPR 496
PATENTS — false suggestion and misrepresentation — whether patents or claims in patents obtained by false suggestion —relevance of position taken by Commissioner of Patents
PATENTS — lack of clarity and failure to define the invention — whether claims in First Patent which do not require vehicle overstay to be determined by the subterraneous detection apparatus lack clarity and fail to define the invention
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0182
For more information, see the original judgement.
