Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
F.Hoffman-La Roche AG v New England Biolabs Inc [2000] FCA 283 PATENTS – patent application – claims in relation to a purified thermostable DNA polymerase – appeals from decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents pursuant to s 60(5) of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) – nature of an appeal from an opposition hearing before a delegate – whether appeal a full hearing of factual issues on the merits – nature of onus – whether it must be "practically certain" that patent would be invalid – whether Court should permit grant unless "quite clear" that patent would not stand – whether opponent's case must be "clearly" made out – whether legislative scheme limits scope of appeal – whether nature of appeal limits evidence that may be adduced – whether evidence of a particular expert relevant Patents Act 1952 (Cth) ss 59(1), 60(1), 60(5), 146(1), 148(2), 150; Pt V Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 3, 19, 19(1), 138, 138(3), 154(1), 158(2), 160; Sch 1 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 24(1A)
Genetics Institute Inc v Kirin-Amgen Inc (1999) 163 ALR 761 referred to McGlashan v Rabett (1909) 9 CLR 223 referred to Stamp v Powell Pty Ltd (1918) 24 CLR 339 cited Henry Berry & Co Pty Ltd v Potter (1924) 35 CLR 132 referred to Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232 considered Kaiser Aluminium & Chemical Corp v Reynolds Metal Co (1969) 120 CLR 136 cited Farmwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius v Commissioner of Patents (1971) 45 ALJR 235 referred to Montecatini Edison S.p.A v Eastman Kodak Co (1971) 45 ALJR 593 considered General Electric Co.'s Applications [1964] RPC 413 referred to Dennison Manufacturing Co v Monarch Marking Systems Inc (1981) 51 AOJPTMD 1716 referred to Dennison Manufacturing Co v Monarch Marking Systems Inc (1983) 66 ALR 265 referred to R D Werner Co Inc v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd (1987) 8 IPR 339 referred to R D Werner Co Inc v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd (1989) 25 FCR 565 referred to ON APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS F.HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE AG v NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS INC NG 947 OF 1997 NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS INC v F.HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE AG NG 1035 OF 1997
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