Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sydney Cellulose Pty Ltd v Ceil Comfort Home Insulation Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1350
PATENTS – proceedings to restrain threats of infringement proceedings made by holder of Australian patent – holder of patent and alleged infringer being business competitors – alleged infringer commenced proceedings to enjoin further threats of infringement proceedings by holder of patent – onus of proof of infringement cast by statute upon holder of patent making such threats – holder of patent failed to invoke facility of O 17 r 1 – holder of patent making threats relied essentially upon dictionary meanings of words used in patent and of alleged infringer's terminologies for purpose of establishing infringement – principles governing interpretation of patent – doctrine of "pith and marrow" – applicants' process possessed variants which had a material effect upon way invention works – no infringement established – injunction granted against holder of patent making threats. TRADE PRACTICES – misleading statements made to consumers of goods or services by trade competitor. WORDS AND PRASES – 'unjustifiable threats' – 'person aggrieved'.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 40, 128, 129 Patents Act 1952 (Cth) s 40 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53(g) Federal Court Rules O 17 r 1
Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 followed Clark v Adie (1875) LR 10 Ch App 667 followed Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1989) 13 IPR 385 followed Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216 referred to Improva Corp v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181 followed Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd (1973) 130 CLR 461 referred to Kastner v Rizla Ltd [1995] RPC 585 referred to Mechanical Services (Trailer Engineers) Ltd v Avon Rubber Co Ltd [1977] RPC 66 followed Meth v Norbent Steinhardt & Son Ltd (1962) 107 CLR 187 followed Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 followed Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1998) 39 IPR 56 referred to Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236 referred to Populin v H B Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 referred to Radiation Ltd v Galliers & Klaerr Pty Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 36 followed Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1985) 10 FCR 567 followed Rodi & Wienenberger AG v Henry Showell Ltd [1969] RPC 367 followed Skinner & Co v Perry (1893) 10 RPC 1 referred to Sunbeam Corporation v Morphy-Richards (Aust) Pty Ltd (1961) 180 CLR 98 referred to U & I Global Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd v Tasman-Warajay Pty Ltd (1995) 32 IPR 494 followed Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed) vol 35 p 375 Lahore, Patents, Trade Marks and Related Rights pp 18,140-18,161 SYDNEY CELLULOSE PTY LIMITED v CEIL COMFORT HOME INSULATION PTY LIMITED N 513 OF 2000 CONTI J 20 SEPTEMBER 2001 SYDNEY
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