Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Grove Hill Pty Ltd v Great Western Corporation Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 183
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents - infringement - specification - whether sufficient description of invention in complete specification - whether invention is substantially more than the claims made - priority - not based solely on filing date - whether claims fairly based on matters disclosed in provisional application - whether all matters upon which the claims were based were disclosed - secret use - whether prior use by inventor was for reasonable trial and experiment only - onus on the party alleging the secret use to demonstrate disqualifying secret use - novelty - whether invention was anticipated by prior art - inventive step - assessed with reference to the common general knowledge at the time - whether combination of known integers obvious - whether combination obvious to an unimaginative but skilled person in the relevant field - whether obviousness is assessed by reference to the claims or the commercial embodiment of the invention
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 117 Patents Regulations 1991
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v FH Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 cited Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 cited; referred to Sami S Svendsen Inc v Independent Products Canada Ltd (1968) 119 CLR 156 cited; followed
Dynasty Pty Ltd v Coombs (1995) 138 ALR 64 cited Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1079 cited; referred to Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 56 cited; referred to
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 cited; considered Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 16 IPR 545 followed Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 75 ALJR 518 referred to Winner v Ammar Holdings Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 205 considered Abbott Laboratories v Corbridge Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 810 considered May v Higgins (1916) 21 CLR 119 referred to Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd (1972 - 1973) 130 CLR 461 referred to Fallshaw Holdings Pty Ltd v Flexello Castors and Wheels PLC (1993) 26 IPR 565 referred to F Hoffman-La Roche & Co AG v Commissioner of Patents (1970-71) 123 CLR 529 applied Société des Usines Chimiques Rhône-Poulenc v Commissioner of Patents (1958) 100 CLR 5 considered CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260 considered Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 51 ALJR 525 referred to; 180 CLR 236 referred to Stauffer Chemical Co's Application [1977] RPC 33 considered Cooper's Animal Health Australia Ltd v Western Stock Distributors Pty Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 382 considered Montecatini Edison SpA v Eastman Kodak Co (1971) 45 ALJR 593 considered International Paint Co Ltd's Application [1982] RPC 247 considered Dunlop Holdings Ltd's Application [1979] RPC 523 considered Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158 applied Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 applied Longworth v Emerton (1950 - 1951) 83 CLR 539 considered Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building System Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 481 referred to; 164 ALR 239 referred to Palmer v Dunlop Perdriau Rubber Co Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 30 considered Radiation Ltd v Galliers & Klaerr Pty Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 36 referred to Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 referred to Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 479 cited Windsurfing International Inc v Petit [1984] 2 NSWLR 196 applied Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 543 referred Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 cited ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corporation Inc (2000) 181 ALR 635 cited Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126 followed Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd [2002] HCA 21 cited Allsop Inc v Bintang Pty Ltd (1989) 15 IPR 686 followed Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1 referred to Aktiebologet Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2000) 51 IPR 375 referred to
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate