Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1002 Citation: Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1002
Parties: WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES and KCI MEDICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 056 073 468) v SMITH & NEPHEW PTY LTD (ACN 000 087 507); SMITH & NEPHEW PTY LTD (ACN 000 087 507); WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES and KCI MEDICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 056 073 468)
File number: VID 143 of 2009
Judge: DODDS-STREETON J
Date of judgment: 30 August 2011
Catchwords: PATENTS – Method and apparatus for treating wounds unlikely to heal by the use of conventional methods through negative pressure wound therapy – Common general knowledge as at priority date – Construction of claims – Meaning of integer of screen means "sufficiently rigid to prevent wound overgrowth" – Meaning of integer of screen means "sufficiently porous" to allow gases or oxygen to reach the wound – Meaning of integer of "migration of epithelial and subcutaneous tissue toward the wound" – Whether various integers essential PATENTS – Infringement – Whether direct or indirect infringement – Whether respondent liable as joint tortfeasor – Whether respondent's products possessed screen means sufficiently rigid to prevent wound overgrowth – Whether respondent's products possessed other integers PATENTS – Validity – Novelty – Whether prior art anticipated claims in suit – Whether claims in suit anticipated by prior use of open drainage system PATENTS – Validity – Inventive step – Whether invention obvious to skilled addressee – Construction of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2) and (3) – Whether prior art comparator to be considered as starting point for obviousness PATENTS – Validity – Other grounds of alleged invalidity – Whether claims in suit fairly based on matter described in specification – Whether priority date deferred – Whether invention a manner of manufacture or comprised of mere clinical desiderata – Whether invention properly defined – Whether claims invalid for lack of clarity – Whether claims invalid for lack of sufficiency – Whether claim invalid as a mere collocation
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