Technological Resources Pty Limited v Tettman [2019] FCA 1889

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Technological Resources Pty Limited v Tettman [2019] FCA 1889 Appeal from: Raymond Ludwig John Tettman v Technological Resources Pty. Limited [2018] APO 22

File number: VID 436 of 2018

Judge: JAGOT J

Date of judgment: 15 November 2019

Catchwords: PATENTS – hearing de novo – common general knowledge of skilled addressee – claimed methods and apparatus for identifying and separating mined material on a bulk basis – upgrading low grade iron ore – meaning of "grade" and "direct assessment" in patent application – whether patent application involves a manner of manufacture pursuant to s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether combination of integers produce a new and useful result – whether claimed invention was a mere scheme and/or mere working directions – whether claimed invention is novel when compared with the prior art base as it existed before the priority date pursuant to s 18(1)(b)(i) of the Patents Act – lack of novelty not proved – whether the claimed invention involved an inventive step when compared with the prior art base before the priority date pursuant to s 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Patents Act – claimed invention not obvious – appeal allowed

Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), 7(3), 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b)(i), 18(1)(b)(ii), 40(3), 60(4) Statute of Monopolies 1624 (UK) Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth)

Cases cited: Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59; (2002) 212 CLR 411 Apotex Pty Ltd (formerly GenRx Pty Ltd) v Sanofi-Aventis [2008] FCA 1194; (2008) 78 IPR 485 Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation (No 3) [2018] FCA 1204; (2018) 135 IPR 13 Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102; (2012) 204 FCR 494 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 99; (2014) 226 FCR 324 Austal Ships Pty Ltd v Stena Rederi Aktiebolag [2005] FCA 805; (2005) 66 IPR 420 Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co Ltd [2000] FCA 316; (2000) 170 ALR 439 British Celanese Ltd v Courtaulds Ltd (1935) 52 RPC 171 Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232 Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177; (2015) 238 FCR 27 Commissioner of Patents v Sherman [2008] FCAFC 182; (2008) 172 FCR 394 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v Technological Resources Pty Limited [2018] APO 23 Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 81; (2009) 177 FCR 239 Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2002] RPC 22 Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161; (2019) 145 IPR 1 F Hoffman-La Roche AG v New England Biolabs Inc [2000] FCA 283; (2000) 99 FCR 56 Garford Pty Ltd v DYWIDAG Systems International Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 6; (2015) 110 IPR 30 General Tire & Rubber Co Ltd v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457; (1971) 1A IPR 121 Generic Health Pty Ltd v Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft [2014] FCAFC 73; (2014) 222 FCR 336 Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120; (2005) 154 FCR 62 H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 70; (2009) 177 FCR 151 ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp Inc [1999] FCA 345; (1999) 45 IPR 577 Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Akzo Nobel BV (No 2) [2007] RPC 3 Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 90; (2005) 65 IPR 86 Lektophone Corporation v S G Brown Ltd (1929) 46 RPC 203 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [No 2] [2007] HCA 21; (2007) 235 CLR 173 Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd v Cargill, Inc [2018] FCA 51; (2018) 354 ALR 95 Merck & Co Inc v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2006] FCAFC 91; (2006) 154 FCR 31 Merial, Inc v Intervet International BV (No 3) [2017] FCA 21; (2017) 122 IPR 128 Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Aust) Ltd [1980] HCA 9; (1980) 144 CLR 253 Morgan & Co v Windover & Co (1890) 7 RPC 131 National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co [1990] FCA 40; (1990) 91 ALR 513 Novozymes A/S v Danisco A/S [2013] FCAFC 6; (2013) 99 IPR 417 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 15; (1995) 183 CLR 655 Orion v Actavis [2015] FCA 909 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 634; (2015) 113 IPR 191 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2013] FCA 368; (2013) 101 IPR 11 Raymond Ludwig John Tettman v Technological Resources Pty. Limited [2018] APO 22 Re Application of Compagnies Réunies des Glaces (1930) 48 RPC 185 Re Cooper's Application for a Patent (1901) 19 RPC 53 Re L. & G.'s Application (1940) 58 RPC 21 Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150; (2014) 227 FCR 378 Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 846; (2011) 196 FCR 1 Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences [2009] FCAFC 142; (2009) 82 IPR 467 SNF (Australia) Pty Limited v BASF Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 425; (2019) 140 IPR 276 SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v BASF Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 425; (2019) 140 IPR 276 Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1366; (2014) 110 IPR 82 Sunbeam Corp v Morphy-Richards (1961) 180 CLR 98 Technological Resources Pty Limited v Tettman [2018] FCA 1770 Valensi v British Radio Corporation [1973] RPC 337 Wake Forest v Smith & Nephew (No 2) [2011] FCA 1002; (2011) 92 IPR 496 Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12; (1981) 148 CLR 262