Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 26 PATENTS – patent for device for players in touch football versions of Rugby League or Australian Rules football – removable strips of material to evidence touches – whether obvious – post-grant re-examination by Commissioner of Patents under Ch 9 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – appeal to Federal Court – whether appeal rehearing de novo – nature of Commissioner's decision – Commissioner can rely on own technical expertise – US patents alleged to be part of prior art by virtue of s 7(3) of Act – skilled person a Rugby League or Australian Rules coach, referee/umpire or administrator – whether such person could be reasonably expected to ascertain US patents – whether need for evidence – whether Commissioner should have determined application for amendment before decision on revocation WORDS AND PHRASES – "ascertained" Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), 7(3), 97(2), 98, 101(1), 101(4) Emperor Sports Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2005] FCA 996 affirmed Wellcome Foundation Limited v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 at 286 cited Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 212 CLR 411 at [50] cited Jafferjee v Scarlett (1937) 57 CLR 115 at 119 applied New England Biolabs Inc v F Hoffman-La Roche AG (2004) 141 FCR 1 at [45]-[47] applied Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 274-277 cited R v Milk Board; Ex parte Tomkins [1944] VLR 187 at 197 applied Kalil v Bray [1977] 1 NSWLR 256 at 261 applied R v Industrial Appeals Court; ex parte Maher [1978] VR 126 at 142 applied Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2002) 66 ALD 579 at 585 cited Tisdall v Health Insurance Commission [2002] FCA 97 at [103] applied Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 cited Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd (2002)188 ALR 280 at [32]-[36] cited Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Ltd v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 99 FCR 151 at [190] cited COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS v EMPEROR SPORTS PTY LTD NO. NSD 1485 OF 2005 HEEREY, KIEFEL & BENNETT JJ 10 MARCH 2006 MELBOURNE (HEARD IN SYDNEY)
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