Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 408 Appeal from: Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd [2017] APO 63; 133 IPR 352
File number: NSD 75 of 2018
Judge: BURLEY J
Date of judgment: 30 March 2020
Catchwords: PATENTS – appeal from an opposition to a standard patent for a vehicle detection system pursuant to s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – validity – lack of inventive step – whether the invention lacks an inventive step in light of the common general knowledge and prior art information pursuant to s 7(2) – ground not established PATENTS – lack of entitlement – whether inventors are not entitled to the grant of the patent for the invention or only entitled in conjunction with other persons – ground not established
Legislation: Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), 7(3), 15, 18(1)(b)(ii), 40(2)(a), 40(3), 40(3A), 59, 60(3), 60(3A), 60(4), sch 1 Patents Act 1952 (Cth) (repealed) Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 (Cth) Explanatory Memorandum
Cases cited: Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59; 212 CLR 411 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 30; 257 CLR 356 Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v Alethia Biotherapeutics Inc. [2016] FCA 1540 Generic Health Pty Ltd v Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft [2014] FCAFC 73; 222 FCR 336 H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 70; 177 FCR 151 JMVB Enterprises Pty Ltd (formerly A'Van Campers Pty Ltd) v Camoflag Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 141; 154 FCR 348 JMVB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Camoflag Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1474; 67 IPR 68 Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] HCA 21; 235 CLR 173 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9; 144 CLR 253 New England Biolabs Inc v F Hoffmann-La Roche AG [2004] FCAFC 213; 141 FCR 1 Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 2 Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 9; 165 FCR 527 RD Werner & Co Inc v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 57; 25 FCR 565 Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1961] HCA 91; 106 CLR 588 Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12; 148 CLR 262 Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd [1970] RPC 157
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