Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Konami Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 735 Citation: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Konami Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 735
Parties: ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 660 715) v KONAMI AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 076 298 158)
File number: NSD 1429 of 2011
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 22 July 2015
Catchwords: PATENTS – patents for gaming machines – whether relevant claims of patents infringed – whether relevant claims of patents valid – whether claims invalid for lack of fair basis, lack of novelty or lack of inventive step – whether claims are to a manner of manufacture – whether lack of inventiveness apparent on face of the specification – whether claims are to a mere idea – whether claims of divisional patent entitled to asserted priority date – whether claims fairly based on matter disclosed in priority document – relevance of s 79B(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to priority date of such claims
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 40(3), 43(2), 79B Patents Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 3.12 Patents Amendment Act 2001 (Cth) Patents Act 1952 (Cth) s 100(1)
Cases cited: Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 171 Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 212 CLR 411 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 226 FCR 324 Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell (2011) 93 IPR 188 Bristol Myers-Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232 Dynamite Games Pty Ltd v Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 100 IPR 86 Furr v C D Truline (Building Products) Ltd [1985] FSR 553 Garford Pty Ltd v Dywidag Systems International Pty Ltd (2015) 110 IPR 30 General Tire & Rubber Co Ltd v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457 ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corporation Inc (1999) 45 IPR 577 Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd (2005) 222 ALR 155 Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Multigate Medical Products Pty Ltd (2011) 92 IPR 21 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 169; (2004) 64 IPR 444 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 274 Merck & Co Inc v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 31 Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 655 Prestige Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1990) 26 FCR 197 Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth [2011] FCAFC 132
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