Sunnyfield Association v Cronk [2009] FCA 33

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sunnyfield Association v Cronk [2009] FCA 33

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – appeal from a determination of the Commissioner of Patents – what constitutes 'fair basing' for the purpose of determining priority dates - whether the claims are invalid for lack of novelty – interpretation of patent applications – the use that may be made of accompanying drawings when interpreting a patent – the meaning of 'substantially orthogonal'- whether the inclusion of a particular embodiment or preferred form of an invention in a patent acts as a limiting consideration to confine the specification, or whether alternative embodiments are available - divisional application prior to the grant of a patent – what amendments of a specification are allowable under the Patent Act 1900 - whether sufficient disclosure has been provided Patent Act 1900 (Cth) ss 40, 60(4), 79B, 102, 105, 114(1) Patents Regulation 1991 (Cth) r 3.12(b) EI Dupont De Nemours & Co v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd (2003) 128 FCR 392 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1988) 13 IPR 385 CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260 Leonardis v Sartas (No 1) Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 1 Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 Anaesthetic Supples Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1 ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp [1999] FCA 1417 Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd (1999) 48 IPR 625 Vax Appliances Limited v Hoover plc [1991] FSR 307 Flexible Steel Lacing Co v Beltrecco Ltd [2000] FCA 890 Clorox Australia Pty Ltd v International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 261 PhotoCure ASA v Queen's University at Kingston [2005] FCA 344 THE SUNNYFIELD ASSOCIATION v PAUL ANDREW CRONK