Dometic Australia Pty Ltd v Houghton Leisure Products Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1573

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dometic Australia Pty Ltd v Houghton Leisure Products Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1573 File number: NSD 217 of 2017

Judge: WHITE J

Date of judgment: 19 October 2018

Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – claim of infringement by the Second Respondent of patent for air conditioning unit – whether alleged infringing unit contains claims in patent – patent contains claim for a centrifugal fan – the alleged infringing unit contains a fan producing the effect of a centrifugal fan by use of surrounding apparatus – whether skilled addressee would have understood patent as including the requirement that the fan itself be centrifugal. HELD: a skilled addressee would understand the patent as requiring the fan to be centrifugal – no infringement by the Second Respondent INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – claim that First Respondent had authorised the infringement or is a joint tortfeasor with the Second Respondent – whether (in the event infringement was established) the First Respondent had aided or joined in the alleged infringing conduct – First Respondent's trademarks, name and address used on the cartons containing products – First Respondent provided some services in relation to products which included the alleged infringing units – First Respondent a wholly owned subsidiary of the company which manufactures the alleged infringing units. HELD: If the claim for infringement had been established, the First Respondent would be a joint tortfeasor with the Second Respondent in relation to the infringement. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – cross-claim for revocation of patent on the basis of invalidity – claim that the patent does not describe the best method known to the applicant in performing the invention – relevant time at which the knowledge of the applicant in relation to the best method is evaluated – specification did not disclose the best method – claim that the patent applicant was in control of access to the information concerning the best method. Held: patent applicant did not know the best method of performing the invention at the time of filing the application. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – cross-claim for revocation of patent on the basis of invalidity – claim that the patent is not novel – whether use of an air conditioning system in a bus in China disclosed the essential integers of the patent – no disclosure of essential integers of patent – ground of invalidity fails.