X hits on this document

89 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

19 / 31

Working of the invention in public for  purpose of reasonable trial

Longworth v Emerton (1951) 83 CLR 539 (RR 2005 at 748)

Non-consensual disclosure

The new ‘grace period’ introduced from 1 April 2002

(d)Inventive step

(i)

Relevant statutory provisions

ss7(2), (3) Patents Act (Cth) 1990 (“PA”)

Dictionary definitions of: prior art base, prior art information, patent area

(ii)How is ‘inventive step’ assessed?  When is an invention obvious?

* APO Manual of Practice and Procedure, Vol 2 at 4.1.4-4.1.5 (MBG 2007 at 415)

* Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1303; (2000) 51 IPR 375; Appeal allowed by HC in [2002] HCA 59 (12/12/02) (RR 2005 at 754-770)

Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 at 286 (RR 2005 at 763)

Relevance of hindsight considerations: see Lockwood v Doric [2007] HCA 21 at [106]; 235 ALR 202.

(iii)Common general knowledge: the relevant prior art knowledge base

* Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) (1980) 144 CLR 253 (RR 2005 at 777-778)

* ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp Inc [1999] FCA 345

(iv)‘CGK + 1’: the operation of s7(3) PA

Firebelt Pty Limited v Brambles Australia Limited (2002) 54 IPR 449 (RR 2005 at 781)

*Lockwood v Doric [2007] HCA 21; 235 ALR 202.

(e)Useful/Utility

* Rehm v Websters Security Systems (1988) 11 IPR 289 (RR 2005 at 782-788)

(f)

Secret use

* Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd (2001) 52 IPR 75 (Full Fed Ct) (RR 2005 at 790-791)

(g)Internal objections: insufficiency, ambiguity, fair basing

Insufficiency of description

Samuel Taylor v SA Brush Co (1950) 83 CLR 616 (RR 2005 at 792-793)

Ambiguity of claims

Fair basing

Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 58 (RR 2005 at 800-807)

(h)

Other grounds of invalidity

Document info
Document views89
Page views89
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 17:22:52 UTC 2016
Pages31
Paragraphs1133
Words8078

Comments