Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cronk v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCA 37 Citation: Cronk v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCA 37
Parties: PAUL ANDREW CRONK v COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
File number: NSD 532 of 2012
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 10 February 2014
Catchwords: PATENTS – appeal under s 109 – whether evidence established that the invention as claimed involved an inventive step when compared with the prior art base, as it existed before the priority date of the claim
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), 7(3), 18(1)(b), 45, 51, 107, 109, 142(2), 158, 160 Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) regs 10.12, 13.4
Cases cited: Aktiebolaget HÄssle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 212 CLR 411 Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports Pty Ltd (2006) 149 FCR 386 Doric Products Pty Ltd v Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd (2001) 192 ALR 306; (2001) 53 IPR 270 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) (2007) 235 CLR 173 Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 New England Biolabs Inc v F Hoffmann-La Roche AG (2004) 141 FCR 1 Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262
Date of hearing: 14 October 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 104
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr KP Smark SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Fraser Old & Sohn
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