Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
E I Du Pont de Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC [2007] FCAFC 163
PATENTS – refrigerants and lubricant compositions – Parent Application found to lack novelty – amended divisional application subsequently accepted by delegate of Commissioner for Patents – whether delegate erred in rejecting claim of issue estoppel
ISSUE ESTOPPEL – whether finding that Parent Application lacked novelty necessarily encompassed finding that specific dependent claim within that Application also lacked novelty – whether issue in the later proceeding in which estoppel raised as a bar "the same issue" as that decided by judgment in earlier action
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b)(i), (ii), 40(2), 51 and 79B
E I Du Pont De Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (2002) 54 IPR 304; [2002] FCA 230 considered Imperial Chemical Industries PLC v E I Dupont De Nemours & Co (2002) AIPC ¶91-818;[2002] FCAFC 264 considered E I Du Pont De Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (2006) 70 IPR 274; [2006] FCA 1402affirmed Imperial Chemical Industries Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2004) 213 ALR 399; [2004] FCA 1658approved ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corporation Inc (1999) 45 IPR 577; [1999] FCA 345considered R D Werner & Co Inc v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd (1989) 25 FCR 565 cited The General Tire & Rubber Company v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd [1972] RPC 457cited Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464followed Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1921) 29 CLR 537discussed Duchess of Kingston's Case (1776) 2 Smith LC (13th ed) 644cited Outram v Morewood (1803) 3 East 346; 102 ER 630 cited Heston Overseers v St Bride Overseers (1853) 1 El & Bl 583; 118 ER 556 cited R v Inhabitants of the Township of Hartington Middle Quarter (1855) 4 El & Bl 780; 119 ER 288 cited Routledge v Hislop (1860) 2 El & El 549; 121 ER 206 cited Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446cited Queensland Trustees Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) (1956) 96 CLR 131 cited Ramsay v Pigram (1968) 118 CLR 271 cited Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 cited Mills v Cooper [1967] 2 QB 459 cited Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853 cited Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529cited DSV Silo-und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Owners of The Sennar [1985] 2 All ER 104considered Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 cited Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 91 ALR 513cited MJA Scientifics International Pty Ltd v S C Johnson & Son Pty Ltd (1998) 43 IPR 287; [1998] FCA 1467cited Hoystead v Commission of Taxation [1926] AC 155 cited
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