KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd v Insta Image Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 481

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd v Insta Image Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 481

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - PATENTS – infringement– identification of the skilled reader – construction of the claims – whether to apply a purposive construction – doctrine of 'pith and marrow' – characterisation of essential and inessential integers of the claim – whether products took each and every one of the essential integers of the claim – commonsense assessment – invalidity – fair basis and clarity –whether real and reasonably clear disclosure in the specification – novelty –whether claim anticipated by prior art and use – whether previous structure publicly available – non-exclusive agreement subject to later agreement for exclusivity – obviousness – exclusive licensee –– no oral modification clause – whether clause rendered ineffective oral or implied variations – intention of parties WORDS & PHRASES – skilled person – exclusive licensee – purposive – 'pith and marrow' Statutes Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss7, 18(1), 40(3), 120, 195(1) Cases Adhesives Pty Ltd v Aktieselskabet Dansk Gaerings-Industri (1935) 55 CLR 523 Cited Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2003) 212 CLR 411 Applied Breville Pty Ltd v Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 576; [2005] FCA 1893 Cited Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 Followed Clarke v Adie (1875) LR 10 Ch App 667 Discusssed Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 26 Considered Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Ltd v Gambro Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 220 Followed GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 688 Considered Hill v Evans (1962) 31 LJ Ch 456 Cited Improver Corporation v Remmington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181 Cited Innovative Agriculture Products Pty Ltd v Cranshaw (1996) 35 IPR 643 Cited Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 86; [2005] FCAFC 90 Cited Kimberly Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 8 Cited Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd (2004) 64 IPR 444; [2004] UKHL 46 Considered Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 274 Cited Merck & Co Inc v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2006) 58 IPR 511; [2006] FCAFC 91 Cited Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 Cited Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 161 IPR 545 Referred to Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236 Considered Pharmacia Italian SpA v Mayne Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (2005) 661 IPR 84 Cited PhotoCure ASA v Queen's University at Kingston (2005) 216 ALR 41; 64 IPR 314; [2005] FCA 344 Cited Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 Followed Radiation Ltd v Galliers & Klaerr Pty Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 36 Considered Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 Cited Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd (2000) 177 ALR 231; 49 IPR 225; [2000] FCA 980 Considered Sachtler GmbH & Co KG v RE Miller Pty Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 605 Cited Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 479 Cited Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 Cited Synthetic Turf Development Pty v Sports Technology International Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 475; [2005] FCAFC 270 Cited Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 93 Cited Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588 Cited KD KANOPY AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD, TREVOR HUDSON DAND, KD KANOPY INC AND INSTANT MARQUEE SYSTEMS PTY LTD v INSTA IMAGE PTY LTD AND RICHARD WALDEN WALLACE AND BRENDA MARGARET WALLACE QUD18 OF 2004