Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Ltd [2008] FCAFC 131 PATENTS – patent for a system of bonus prize winning mode on gaming machines – where appeal from pre-emptive challenge to patent application unsuccessful before Patent Commissioner but successful before primary judge – where primary judge found patent application in suit not novel in light of earlier patent – patent application construction principles - where no dispute that earlier patent discloses 'combination trigger' and patent application in suit discloses 'count trigger' but question is whether patent application is also in respect of a combination trigger and whether earlier patent discloses a count trigger PROCEDURE – operation of s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 60(4) Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd (2007) 239 ALR 181,(2007) 71 IPR 259 reversed Aristocrat Technologies Australia Ltd v IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd (2007) 74 IPR 117 related Austal Ships Pty Ltd v Stena Rederi Aktiebolag (2005) 66 IPR 420 cited Clorox Australia Pty Ltd v International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd (2006) 68 IPR 254 cited Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1988)13 IPR 385 followed E I Du Pont de Nemours and Company v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd (2003) 128 FCR 392 cited F Hoffman-La Roche AG v New England Biolabs Inc (2000) 99 FCR 56 cited General Tire & Rubber Company v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd (1971) 1A IPR 121 followed Genetics Institute Inc v Kirin-Amgen Inc (1999)92 FCR 106 cited ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp Inc (2000) 106 FCR 214 applied Imperial Chemical Industries Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2004) 213 ALR 399 referred to Inamed Development Company v Morton Surgical Pty Ltd (2007) 73 IPR 308 cited Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd (2005) 222 ALR 155, (2005) 65 IPR 86 cited Myers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 cited New England Biolabs Inc v F Hoffman-La Roche AG (2004) 141 FCR 1 cited Sachtler GmbH & Co KG v RE Miller Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 373 followed Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 479 followed Synthetic Turf Development Pty Limited v Sports Technology International Pty Limited (2005) 67 IPR 475 cited IGT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD and ACRES GAMING INC v ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA LTD
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