Stena Rederi Aktiebolag v Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 864

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stena Rederi Aktiebolag v Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 864 PATENT – hull structure of multi-hull vessel – improved seakeeping at high speeds – construction of claims – application of agreed legal principles to present case – whether claims ambiguous or uncertain – whether ambiguity in 'substantial portion' or 'narrow waisted' – 'substantial portion' not defined by numerical parameters – 'narrow waisted' means 'significant narrowing' – construction of inconsistent claims – modification of claims – infringement of patent – whether width of allegedly infringing vessels continually decreases – priority date of patent – whether claims in Australian application disclosed by claims in earlier Swedish application – whether amendments affect priority date – inventive step and obviousness – consideration of High Court in Lockwood – application of agreed legal principles to present case – whether combination of SWATH forward hull with catamaran stern hull obvious – whether prior art disclosed inventive step before priority date – prior art of vessels built before priority date – prior art of publications published before priority date – novelty – whether claims are clear and succinct, define the invention and possess fair basis. WORDS AND PHRASES – narrow waisting – substantial proportion – continually decreases Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 7, 40, 43, 114(1) Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth), regs 3.12, 3.14

Austal Ships Pty Ltd v Stena Rederi Aktiebolag (2004) 66 IPR 420, considered E I Du Pont De Nemours v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd (2005) 66 IPR 462, cited Electric and Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen (1938) 56 RPC 23, cited Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd (2002) 188 ALR 280, cited Flexible Steel Lacing Company v Beltrico Ltd (2000) 49 IPR 331, cited Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd (1973) 130 CLR 461, cited Kimberly-Clark Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Limited (2001) 207 CLR 1, considered Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited [2004] UKHL 46, cited Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 12, considered Lockwood Security Products Pty Limited v Doric Products Pty Limited (2004) 217 CLR 274, cited Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 21, followed Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd (1954) 92 CLR 17, considered Melbourne v Terry Fluid Controls Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 292, considered Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253, considered Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236, cited Pfizer Inc v Commissioner for Patents (2005)141 FCR 413, cited Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471, cited Rhem Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988)81 ALR 79, cited Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Ltd [1972] RPC 346, cited Tidy Tea Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd (1995) 32 IPR 405, cited