Ace Bed Co., Ltd v Sealy Technology LLC

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Ace Bed Co., Ltd v Sealy Technology LLC [2015] APO 63

Patent Application:                2008219052

Title:Innerspring coils and innersprings with non-helical segments

Patent Applicant:                   Sealy Technology LLC

Opponent:  Ace Bed Co., Ltd.

Delegate:  R Subbarayan

Decision Date:  24 September 2015

Hearing Date:  9 July 2015, in Canberra; 

Catchwords:  PATENTS – section 59 – opposition to grant of patent – Innerspring coils for a mattress – whether claims are novel – whether claims are inventive - whether claims are clear and succinct - whether claims are fairly based - whether claims are useful – none of the grounds made out – costs awarded against the opponent

Representation:  Patent applicant:  Did not appear

Opponent:Fraser Old of Fraser Old & Sohn

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application:                2008219052

Title:Innerspring coils and innersprings with non-helical segments

Patent Applicant:                   Sealy Technology LLC

Date of Decision:                   24 September 2015

DECISION

None of the grounds of the opposition has been made out. All of the claims are novel, inventive, clear and succinct, fairly based and useful.

I direct that the application proceed to grant subject to any appeal being filed within the relevant period.

Costs according to schedule 8 awarded against the opponent Ace Bed Co., Ltd.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. Application 2008219052 in the name of Sealy Technology LLC (Sealy) was filed on 19 February 2008 as a PCT application (PCT/US2008/002146) and claims an earlier priority of 20 February 2007 from priority application US 11/708099. The application was advertised as accepted on 20 March 2014. Ace Bed Co., Ltd (Ace) filed a notice of opposition to the grant of the patent on 20 June 2014. The matter was heard in Canberra on 9 July 2015. Sealy advised that they did not wish to appear at the hearing or file written submissions.

   GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION

2. Ace has opposed the application on the grounds of Novelty, Inventive Step, Clarity, Fair Basis and Utility.

   EVIDENCE

3. The only evidence in this opposition is evidence in support comprising the following:

   ·Declaration of Mr Nick Ristevski dated 18 November 2014.

   ·Declaration of Mr Nick Ristevski dated 18 December 2014 with exhibits NR-1 to NR-3.

4. Mr Ristevski is the proprietor of Rockdale Mattress Factory, a Sydney based company that has been manufacturing standard and custom made mattresses for approximately 40 years.

5. In his first declaration, Mr Ristevski briefly discusses the different types of centre springs used in innersprings of mattresses, including the use of exposed coils which extend above the border wires of the innerspring. He also states that if it is desired to increase or decrease the height of the mattress, the normal way of doing this is to increase or decrease the length of the centre spring by adding or decreasing the number of turns of the spring, or by increasing or decreasing the spacing between adjacent turns.

6. In his second declaration, he very briefly discusses the opposed application and the two prior art documents that Ace relies on.

   ONUS OF PROOF