Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Neurizon Pty Ltd v Jupiters Limited [2004] FCA 1012 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – infringement – whether claims of the patent are unclear when read by skilled addressee- whether the specification should be used to determine the meaning of claims when considering issue of infringement – fair basing – whether the claims express a wider invention than the matter described in the specification – novelty – whether the patent is anticipated by the prior art base – application of the reverse infringement test – obviousness – whether the patent lacks an inventive step – whether the patent would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed in the patent area before the priority date – effect of previous decision involving the same patent in determining construction of the patent
Statutes Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 40(3), 18(1)(b)(ii), 7(2), 7(3), 115(1)(a) Queensland Gaming Machine Act 1991 (Qld)
Cases Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 56 IPR 129 Foll Edison and Swan Electric Light Co v Holland (1889) 6 RPC 243 Dist Flexible Steel Lacing Company v Beltreco Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 331 Cited Flour Oxidizing Company Ltd v Carr & Co Ltd (1908) 25 RPC 428 Dist Hicks v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 757 Cons Higginson & Arundel v Pyman (1926) 43 RPC 291 Dist Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Limited [1990] FSR 181 Foll Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 177 ALR 460 Foll La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201 Cited Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Limited (1977) 137 CLR 228 Foll Neurizon Pty Ltd v LTH Consulting and Marketing Services Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1547 Cons Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236 Foll Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd [1970] RPC 157 Foll Otto v Steel (1886) 3 RPC 109 Dist Re Dow Corning Corporation's Application [1969] RPC 544 Cited The Automatic Weighing Machine Co v The Combined Weighing Machine Co (1889) 6 RPC 367 Dist NEURIZON PTY LTD v JUPITERS LIMITED, JUPITERS MACHINE GAMING PTY LIMITED, EASTERN SUBURBS LEAGUES CLUB LIMITED, WYNNUM MANLY LEAGUES CLUB LIMITED, QUEENSLAND LIONS SOCCER CLUB Q44 OF 2003 KIEFEL J BRISBANE 5 AUGUST 2004
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