Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v Ciba Speciality Chemicals Water Treatments Limited [2011] FCA 452 Citation: SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v Ciba Specialty Chemicals Water Treatments Limited
Parties: SNF (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 050 056 267) v CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENTS LIMITED, CIBA (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 005 061 469) and THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
File number: VID 447 of 2008
Judge: KENNY J
Date of judgment: 6 May 2011
Catchwords: PATENTS – process for treatment of mining waste – alleged invalidity – construction of claims – whether patents in suit invalid for want of novelty – whether patents anticipated by earlier patents and earlier prior art acts – no anticipation – processes of settling and sedimentation different from rigidification – other differences in processes – lack of novelty not established PATENTS – whether patents in suit invalid for lack of innovative step – applicant failed to establish that patents varied from prior art base in ways that make no substantial contribution to the working of the invention PATENTS – whether patents in suit a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies – no admission on the face of the specifications of the patents that, in relation to a specific prior art documents mentioned in the specification, the invention does not differ in a way that does not make a substantial contribution to the working of the invention – no other relevant admission on the face of the specification – not invalid on this ground PATENTS – whether patents in suit invalid for insufficiency – whether sufficient guidance about the dosage, dosing point and rate of addition of polymer – no testing required beyond the routine – no need for invention or ingenuity – patents not invalid for insufficiency PATENTS - whether patents in suit invalid for lack of clarity – "a process of improving rigidification" – "then allowed to stand and rigidify" – "an effective rigidifying amount" – "the material is dewatered during rigidification" – "during transfer" - terms clear when construed by reference to the specifications of the patents – lack of clarity ground not made out PATENTS - whether patents invalid for lack of fair basis – specification provides a real and reasonably clear disclosure of what is claimed – that is, of the point during transfer at which combination should occur – lack of fair basis challenge not made out PATENTS - whether patents invalid for inutility – no evidence that some process within the claims did not work or that some process within the claim failed to fulfil the promises in the body of the specification – ground of inutility failed PATENTS – respondent cross-claimed for infringement of its patents – infringement conceded in respect of use of process at two mines – infringement by authorisation of infringing use at third mine established
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate