Williams Advanced Materials, Inc v Target Technology Company LLC [2004] FCA 1405

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Williams Advanced Materials, Inc v Target Technology Company LLC [2004] FCA 1405 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – PATENTS – novelty – reverse infringement – no suggested advantage or difference between materials in possible range – reverse infringement – equal in practical utility – clear directions in prior art to work within claimed ranges or proportions – no suggestion that specified proportions or ranges other than arbitrary – claim construction and disclosure in prior art a matter for expert evidence only to the extent of special meaning to skilled reader – obviousness – reliance on evidence of skilled worker with no common general knowledge in Australia for inventive step – mental logic of the notional team constituting the skilled addressee – evidence given without knowledge of the patent – no hindsight analysis – test in Astra – not a question of worthwhile to try – inventive step is the choice of metal alloys in the combination that was otherwise common general knowledge and acknowledged as known in the specification – no suggestion that initiation of inventive step in other than the choice of the new alloys for use in the reflective layers by reference to known requirements – dependent and omnibus claims – incorporates the invalidity of the independent claims to the extent of dependence on that claim – lack of sufficiency of description COSTS – O 62 r 11(2) – gross sum – evidence of detailed bill of costs – no appearance by respondent – further expense and delay – success by applicant – award of costs – amount logical, fair and reasonable PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – default judgment – revocation of patent – patentee chooses not to defend patent monopoly – Federal Court Rules O 10 r 7(1)(b) – O 11 r 23(1)(b) – O 33 r 3 (repealed) – s 190(3) Evidence Act – discretion in s 190(3) applied – relevance of O 33 r 3 (repealed) to s 190(3) – translations of prior art Japanese patent not a certified translation Federal Court Rules O 10 r 7(1)(b); O 11 r 23(1)(b); O 33 r 3 (repealed); O 62 r 11(2) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 190(3) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), 40(2)(a) Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 628 Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Limited (2002) 212 CLR 411 Aus Fence Hire Pty Ltd v Thomas [2004] FCA 557 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 Datadot Technology Ltd v Alpha Microtech Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1449 Eichengrun's Application [1932] 49 RPC 435 Gambro Pty Limited v Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Limited [2004] FCA 323 General Tire & Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457 Hill v Evans (1862) 6 LT 90; (1862) 1A IPR 1 Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1 Maxims Entertainment Pty Ltd v Chinatown Enterprises Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1707 Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 My Distributors Pty Ltd v OMAQ Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 578 Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 91 ALR 513 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 239 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1992) 24 IPR 1 Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 481; (1999) 164 ALR 239 Lahore: Patents, Trade Marks and Related Rights Volume 1 WILLIAMS ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC v TARGET TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LLC NSD944 OF 2004 BENNETT J 29 OCTOBER 2004 SYDNEY