Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1079

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1079

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – alleged infringement – whether substance of invention taken – whether modification of patented invention had practical significance – consideration of essential and non-essential integers of the claims said to be infringed – whether or not an essential integer missing in the relevant patent claims – revocation – alleged anticipation – alleged prior "secret use" – whether invention "secretly used" – whether reasonable trial and experiment – whether use in the course of a confidential disclosure – whether confidential manufacture prior to application for patent amounted to "use" – consideration of historical basis for "secret use" ground of revocation – consideration of definitions of "use", "secretly use", "secretly used", "not … used", and "exploit" in current previous legislation – whether there had been a "de facto" extension of the patent term – consideration of the test of illegitimate extension of the patent term.

WORDS AND PHRASES – "use", "used", "secretly used", "reasonable trial and experiment".

Patents Act 1990 (Cth) Patents Act 1903 (Cth) Patents Act 1952 (Cth) Patents and Designs Act 1932 (Imp) Patents Act 1949 (Imp) Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA) Sargant Report 1931 (UK) Statute of Monopolies 1623

Birmingham Sound Reproducers Ltd v Collaro Limited [1956] RPC 232 referred to Bramah v Hardcastle (1789) Holroyd 81 followed Bristol-Myers Co v Beecham Group Ltd [1974] AC 646 applied Betts v Menzies (1859) 120 ER 1181 followed Catnic Components Limited v Hill & Smith Limited [1982] RPC 183 distinguished Commonwealth Industrial Gases Limited v MWA Holdings Pty Ltd (1970) 180 CLR 160 applied Fellows v Thomas William Lench (1917) 34 RPC cited Fomento Industrial SA v Mentmore Manufacturing Co Limited [1956] RPC 87 not followed Hudson Scott & Sons Ltd v Barringer Wallis & Manners Ltd (1906) 23 RPC 79 cited Interlego A.G. v Toltoys Pty Ltd (1973) 130 CLR 461 cited Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v H V Norton & Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76 referred to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 referred to Morgan v Seaward (1837) 2 M & W 544, 150 ER 874 followed Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 91 ALR 513 referred to Populin v HB Nominees (1982) 41 ALR 471 referred to Radiation Limited v Galliers & Klaerr Proprietary Limited (1938) 60 CLR 36 referred to Rodi and Wienenberger AG v Henry Showell Limited [1969] RPC 367 referred to R v Patents Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Beecham Group Ltd [1974] AC 646 referred to Raleigh Cycle Coy Ltd v H Miller & Coy Ltd (1948) 65 RPC 141 referred to Re Wheatley's Application (1984) 2 IPR 450 distinguished Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 referred to Robertson v Purdey (1907) 24 RPC 273 followed State Rail Authority v Earthline Constructions (1999) 73 ALJR 306; (1999) 160 ALR 588 referred to Welch Perrin Co Pty Ltd v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588 referred to Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc [2001] FCA 445 followed Walker v Alemite Corporation (1933) 49 CLR 643 applied Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491 referred to AZUKO PTY LTD AND SEISMIC SUPPLY INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD V OLD DIGGER PTY LTD (formerly SDS DIGGER TOOLS PTY LTD) NO. SG 70 OF 2000 JUDGES: BEAUMONT, HEEREY & GYLES JJ DATE: 8 AUGUST 2001 PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN ADELAIDE AND SYDNEY)