Aspirating IP Limited v Vision Systems Limited [2010] FCA 1061

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Aspirating IP Limited v Vision Systems Limited [2010] FCA 1061

Citation: Aspirating IP Limited v Vision Systems Limited [2010] FCA 1061

Parties: ASPIRATING IP LIMITED v VISION SYSTEMS LIMITED

File numbers: VID 1042 of 2008 SAD 59 of 2005

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 30 September 2010

Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — PATENTS — appeals under s 60 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ('the Act')— opposition to grant of standard patent for smoke detection system using bypass arrangement — what was priority date of claim — whether claim fairly based on earlier patent application filed in United Kingdom pursuant to s 43 of the Act and Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) r 3.12 — construction of claims — whether description of claim in specification 'main duct means in the form of sampling duct means of a smoke detection system' included air conditioning duct or only dedicated sampling pipe — whether alleged invention was novel pursuant to ss 7(1) and 18(1) of the Act — what was prior art base for purpose of Schedule 1 of the Act — whether prior use of relevant information had been 'publicly available' pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Act — whether information made publicly available where only disclosed between members of company — whether smoke detection system made publicly available on secured site where public access restricted — whether smoke detection system made publicly available via patent filed in 1965 — whether 1965 patent should be read at date of its issue or at priority date — whether alleged invention involved an inventive step pursuant to ss 7 and 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Act — what were attributes of person skilled in the relevant art — what was common general knowledge at the priority date — whether alleged inventive step was obvious — whether witnesses for respondent who knew of claims in specification before giving opinion on inventive step able to give evidence as to whether alleged inventive step was obvious — whether applicant entitled to grant of patent for the invention pursuant to ss 15 and 59 of the Act — whether applicant had derived title to the invention from the inventor