Synthetic Turf Development Pty Limited v Sports Technology International Pty Limited [2005] FCAFC 270

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Synthetic Turf Development Pty Limited v Sports Technology International Pty Limited [2005] FCAFC 270

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – whether infringement of patent for a synthetic turf playing surface – construction of phrase 'are crimped' – whether claims fairly based on matter disclosed in the specification – novelty – whether appellate court should interfere with findings of primary judge – inventive step – whether open to primary judge to conclude that the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 18(1)(b), 40(3) Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd (1992) 25 IPR 173 referred to Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd (2002) 188 ALR 280 cited Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 applied Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Limited v Gambro Pty Limited [2005] FCAFC 220 cited Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited (2001) 207 CLR 1cited Lockwood Security Products Pty Limited v Doric Products Pty Limited (2004) 217 CLR 274 cited Mikasa (N.S.W.) Pty Limited v Festival Stores (1972) 127 CLR 617referred to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v Beiersdorf (Australia) Limited (1980) 144 CLR 253 cited Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 cited Sachtler GMBH & Co KG v RE Miller Pty Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 605referred to SYNTHETIC TURF DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED v SPORTS TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED NSD 329 of 2005 BRANSON, STONE AND BENNETT JJ 23 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 329 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SYNTHETIC TURF DEVELOPMENT PTY LIMITED

APPELLANT

AND: SPORTS TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED