Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Reflex Instruments Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 158 Appeal from: Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd v Reflex Instruments Asia Pacific Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 797
File number: NSD 618 of 2022
Judgment of: MOSHINSKY, BURLEY AND KENNETT JJ
Date of judgment: 29 September 2023
Catchwords: PATENTS – construction – whether the primary judge erred in construction of "downhole equipment" and "downhole gathering data system" as excluding equipment for use in holes drilled for oil and gas exploration and production and wireline telemetry equipment – whether primary judge erred in construing the phrases "electromagnetic signal direction altering means", "reflector" and "communicate wirelessly" as excluding the use of optical fibre PATENTS – novelty – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the invention as claimed was novel in light of information made publicly available in either of two prior art documents PATENTS – inventive step – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the invention as claimed involved an inventive step in the light of the common general knowledge considered alone or taken together with information made publicly available in either of two prior art documents
Legislation: Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 7
Cases cited: Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59; 212 CLR 411 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99; 226 FCR 324 Atlantis Corporation Pty Ltd v Schindler [1997] FCA 1105; 39 IPR 29 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co Ltd [2000] FCA 316; 97 FCR 524 Davies v Lazer Safe Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 65 Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Ltd v Gambro Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 220; 67 IPR 230 Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 162; 145 IPR 39 Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1; 130 CLR 461 Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 90; 222 ALR 155 Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] HCA 21; 235 CLR 173 Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1961] HCA 91; 106 CLR 588 Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12; 148 CLR 262 Winner v Ammar Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 561; 24 IPR 137 Winner v Ammar Holdings Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 205 Zetco Pty Ltd v Austworld Commodities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 848
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