Wm Wrigley Jr Company v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1035

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wm Wrigley Jr Company v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1035

PATENTS – claim for infringement of patent for hard coated sugarless chewing gum – cross-claim for invalidity – integers of a coating including hydrogenated isomaltulose and centre with low moisture content – denial of infringement and cross claim for invalidity PATENTS – construction – meaning of the term "hydrogenated isolmaltulose" – whether confined to commercial sugar substitute Palatinit or all forms of hydrogenated isolmaltulose PATENTS – manner of manufacture – Palatinit not previously used in sugarless chewing gums – whether the skilled reader would think that the known properties of the substance made it suitable for use in the manner contemplated by the patent – whether patent a true combination of integers or merely a collocation PATENTS – obviousness – whether the notional skilled but non-inventive worker (or team) would, in all the circumstances, be led directly to try making a sugarless chewing gum with the two essential integers of the patent in the expectation that it might well produce a useful alternative to, or a better product than, other hard coated sugarless gums PATENTS – novelty – Palatinit promotional material, known as the Infopac, contained recipes for making various candies - whether the Infopac contains sufficient disclosure to anticipate the claimed invention PATENTS – false suggestion – specification incorrectly referred to hydrogenated isomaltulose as "substantially hygroscopic" – whether the suggestion or representation materially contributed to the Commissioner's decision to grant the patent PATENTS – non-compliance with section 40 – whether the specification fully describes the invention – whether the claims define the invention – whether claims fairly based in the body of the specification PATENTS – utility – 50 per cent weight of hydrogenated isomaltulose required for utility – not all claims specify a particular amount of hydrogenated isomaltulose – whether all claims fail for inutility PATENTS – infringement – whether gums imported and sold by respondent shown by testing to have the integers of the patent Patents Act 1952 (Cth) ss 40, 100 Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 at 292 applied Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Limited (2003) 212 CLR 411 at [57] cited Eli Lilly & Co v Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals [2005] FCA 67 at [102] cited Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v F H Faulding & Co Limited (2000) 97 FCR 524 applied Commissioner of Patents v Microcel Limited (1959) 102 CLR 232 applied NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 655 cited Re L & G's Application (1940) 58 RPC 21 cited Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588 at 611 cited Sabef SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Pty Ltd [2005] RPC 10 at [17], [24]-[27] cited Canadian General Electric Co Limited v Fada Radio Limited [1930] AC 97 at 104 cited Lockwood Security Products Pty Limited v Doric Products Pty limited (2004) 217 CLR 274 applied Prestige Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1990) 19 IPR 275 at 279-280, 296 cited Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 at 219, 236, 250 and 262 cited Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 25 IPR 119 at 143 applied Norton and Gregory Limited v Jacobs (1937) 54 RPC 271 at 276 cited Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1989) 14 IPR 330 at 337 cited WM WRIGLEY JR COMPANY v CADBURY SCHWEPPES PROPRIETARY LIMITED NO VID 767 OF 2002 HEEREY J 28 JULY 2005 MELBOURNE