Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 864 File number: NSD 558 of 2014
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 2 August 2017
Catchwords: PATENTS – standard patent for light emitting device and display device – claim for infringement – cross-claim seeking revocation of certain claims – whether infringement established PATENTS – validity – obviousness – identity of the person skilled in the art – whether invention was art-changing – availability of prior art information under s 7(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether invention obvious PATENTS – validity – manner of manufacture – whether threshold requirement of s 18(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) met PATENTS – validity – whether lack of novelty established on the evidence – whether prior art documents relied on were fabricated PATENTS – validity – whether invention defined – whether definition lacks clarity
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 57, 63, 64, 136 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 138, 7, 18
Cases cited: Advanced Building Systems Pty Limited v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Limited (1998) 194 CLR 171; [1998] HCA 19 Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Limited (2002) CLR 411; [2002] HCA 59 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2015) 323 ALR 605; [2015] HCA 30 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 226 FCR 324; [2014] FCAFC 99 Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd (2010) 86 IPR 468; [2010] FCAFC 75 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v FH Faulding & Company Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Limited (1959) 102 CLR 232 Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1988) 13 IPR 385 DSI Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Garford Pty Ltd (2013) 100 IPR 19; [2013] FCA 132 Elconnex Pty Limited v Gerrard Industries Pty Limited (1991) 32 FCR 491 Electric & Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd [1938] 4 All ER 221 Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Ltd v Gambro Pty Ltd (2005) 224 ALR 168; [2005] FCAFC 220 General Tire & Rubber Company v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company Limited [1972] RPC 457 H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2009) 177 FCR 151 International Business Machines Corporation v Smith, Commissioner of Patents (1992) AIPC 90-853 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) (2007) 235 CLR 173; [2007] HCA 21 Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 699 Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2016) 240 FCR 13; [2016] FCA 466 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Limited (1995) 183 CLR 655 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Limited (1993) 44 FCR 239 Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd [1970] RPC 157 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd (No 4) (2015) 113 IPR 191; [2015] FCA 634 Saint-Gobain PAM SA v Fusion Provida Limited, Electrosteel Casting Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 177 Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2010] RPC 33; [2010] EWCA Civ 819 Seafood Innovations Pty Ltd v Richard Bass Pty Ltd (2011) 92 IPR 1; [2011] FCAFC 83 The Wenham Gas Company v The Champion Gas Lamp Company (1891) 9 RPC Tickner v Honda Motor Co Ltd [2002] EWHC 8 Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588 Wellcome Foundation Limited v V.R. Laboratories (Aust.) Proprietary Limited (1981) 148 CLR 262
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