Zetco Pty Ltd v Austworld Commodities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 848

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zetco Pty Ltd v Austworld Commodities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 848 Citation: Zetco Pty Ltd v Austworld Commodities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 848

Parties: ZETCO PTY LTD (ACN 084 301 986) v AUSTWORLD COMMODITIES PTY LTD (ACN 006 882 631)

File number: NSD 194 of 2009

Judge: BENNETT J

Date of judgment: 1 August 2011

Catchwords: PATENTS – expert evidence – relevance of experience level of expert witnesses PATENTS – construction – plumbing valve for use with instantaneous gas and hot water systems – meaning of "valve" – meaning of "valve housing" – whether component parts of valve prefabricated or pre-attached – meaning of "being the same size" – meaning of "pipe coupling" – meaning of "substantially constant internal diameter" – whether valve being "rated" requires compliance with relevant Australian standards – whether certification required to appear on body of valve PATENTS – infringement – whether infringement of method claims of patent pursuant to s 117 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether respondent's valves have only one reasonable use – whether respondent's valves are not staple commercial products – whether respondent had reason to believe its valves would be put to certain use PATENTS – novelty – prior art valves missing essential integer of claim – whether enabling disclosure of missing integer to skilled reader – whether skilled reader would add missing information to prior art valves as a matter of course PATENTS – novelty – whether prior art valve was "prior art information" for purposes of s 7(1)(a) of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether prior art valve was offered for sale or sold prior to priority date – whether prior art valve was supplied with parts of valve joined together – whether part of prior art valve was detachable – relevance of patent filed by developer of prior art valve after priority date of patent-in-suit PATENTS – novelty – whether prior art valves disclose method claims of patent – whether method claims of patent already in use prior to priority date PATENTS – inventive step – whether combination of integers formed part of common general knowledge – whether applicant's prior art valves formed part of common general knowledge – whether prior art valves relied upon by respondent for novelty purposes formed part of common general knowledge PATENTS – inventive step – relevance of being first to introduce new product – relevance of failure of inventor to give evidence – relevance of evidence of whether inventor thought claimed valve was inventive – relevance of evidence of commercial success PATENTS – whether to grant additional damages for infringement pursuant to s 122(1A) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – relevance of invalidity defence – relevance of copying – whether applicant has onus to prove copying by respondent – whether inference of copying can be drawn TRADE PRACTICES – whether contravention of ss 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether passing off – whether applicant has established reputation in distinctive features of its valves – whether consumers misled or likely to be misled – relevance of whether product in question ordinarily has common features