Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 467 Citation: Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 467
Parties: BRITAX CHILDCARE PTY LTD v INFA-SECURE PTY LTD
File number: VID 109 of 2009
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 9 May 2012
Catchwords: PATENTS – construction – claim construction – whether the words in a claim have an ordinary or technical meaning – whether the words in a claim are defined in the specification – role of expert evidence in construing claims – when expert evidence is admissible to construe claims – inadmissible expert evidence otherwise received as a submission under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). PATENTS – construction – claim construction – expert evidence from a person skilled in the relevant art – whether person skilled in the art is a non-inventive worker in the relevant field – whether person skilled in the art for novelty and inventive step is the same person skilled in the art for purposes of determining construction. PATENTS – construction – claim construction generally – purposive approach to construction – construction of patents when multiple patents in suit – each patent to be read separately.
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Act 2000 (Cth) Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth)
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