Microsoft Corporation v Intertrust Technologies Corporation [2003] FCA 656

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Microsoft Corporation v Intertrust Technologies Corporation [2003] FCA 656 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Patents – application for revocation of patent – no cross-claim for infringement – motion by applicant for revocation seeking order that respondent-patentee provide particulars of "inventive step", "relevant art" and "qualifications and experience of person(s) skilled in the relevant art" – no evidence yet filed by applicant for revocation – only sparse particulars of invalidity provided by applicant for revocation – onus on applicant for revocation to prove invalidity – whether patentee should be required to supply particulars as an aspect of case management with a view to narrowing ambit of dispute. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – particulars – application for revocation of patent – no cross claim for infringement – motion by applicant for revocation seeking order that respondent-patentee provide particulars of "inventive step", "relevant art" and "qualifications and experience of person(s) skilled in the relevant art" – no evidence yet filed by applicant for revocation – only sparse particulars of invalidity provided by applicant for revocation – onus on applicant for revocation to prove invalidity – whether patentee should be required to supply particulars as an aspect of case management with a view to narrowing ambit of dispute. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), (3); 18(1)(b)(ii); 138 AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd (1971) 45 ALJR 123 cited Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2003] FCA 642 referred to Bailey v Commissioner of Taxation (1977) 136 CLR 214 distinguished British United Shoe Machinery Co Ltd v A Fussell & Sons Ltd (1908) 25 RPC 631 cited Grace Australia Pty Ltd v MBT Holding AG [2002] FCA 1512 not followed James Keith & Blackman Co Ltd v Tilley High Pressure Gas Syndicate Ltd (1913) 30 RPC 537 cited Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1 cited Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Tyco Electronics Pty Ltd (2002) 56 IPR 248 discussed Raleigh Cycle Co Ltd v H Miller & Co Ltd (1948) 65 RPC 141 cited Sonotone Corporation v Multitone Electric Co Ltd (1955) 72 RPC 131 cited