ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd v Rynand Pty Limited - [2005] APO 15

OFFICIAL NOTICE
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Application : No. 704930 in the name of ATF Mining Electrics Ltd

Title: Load Control Module

Action: Request under Patents Regulation 5.5(1) by ATF Mining Electrics Ltd for dismissal of an opposition made under Subsection 104(4) by Rynand Pty Limited

Decision: Issued 01 April 2005.
Abstract

A request for dismissal of a S104 opposition was made. While the S104 opposition was not dismissed in its entirety, some of the particulars were directed not to be available at the hearing of the S104 opposition. Furthermore, one ground of the S104 opposition was withdrawn on the day of the hearing.
As both parties were partially successful, no award of costs was made.
PATENTS ACT 1990
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Re:Patent Application No.704930 by ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd and a request under Patents Regulation 5.5(1) by ATF Mining Electrics Ltd for dismissal of an opposition made under Subsection 104(4) by Rynand Pty Limited.

BACKGROUND

Patent application 704930 in the name of ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd (herein after called ATF) was filed as a PCT application of PCT/AU94/00492 by Metal Manufacturers Limited and was accorded AU74853/94. The PCT application claimed priority from an earlier Australian provisional PM0808 filed on 24 August 1993. The application proceeded to acceptance and was subsequently advertised as accepted on 6 May 1999. On 6 August 1999, Bramco Electronics (herein after called Bramco) filed a notice of opposition and on 22 November 1999, ATF requested recordal of an assignment dated 17 June 1999 from Metal Manufacturers Limited to itself.
A decision on the substantive opposition has issued as ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd v Bramco Electronics [2003] APO 47 (31 October 2003). ATF was given 60 days within which to propose suitable amendments. Subsequently, a S104 request was filed on 29 December 2003 and advertised on 30 June 2004.
Rynand Pty Ltd (herein after called Rynand) filed a notice of opposition to the section 104 amendments on 1 September 2004. On 29 November 2004, the statement of grounds and particulars was filed. On 14 December 2004, ATF filed a request for dismissal of the opposition to the S104 amendments.
A hearing was set down for 15 February 2005 at Canberra. Mr John Walsh, patent attorney, of Walsh & Associates attended on behalf of ATF. Also in attendance was Peter Cockbain from ATF. Connie Karathomas, patent attorney from FB Rice appeared by telephone on behalf of the opponent, Rynand.
Both parties presented written submissions.
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS AND PARTICULARS FOR S104
Each ground was particularised. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the nomenclature as used by ATF in its submissions.
Ground 1
Section 104(5) - Section 102(2)(a)
A claim of the specification would not in substance fall within the scope of the claims of the specification before the amendment.
Particular 1: Section 104(5) - Section 102(2)(a)
The claims do not meet the requirements of Section…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd v Rynand Pty Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] APO 15
Decision Date: 1 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd v Rynand Pty Limited involves a patent application numbered 704930, originally filed by Metal Manufacturers Limited and later assigned to ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd. Rynand Pty Limited filed an opposition to the proposed amendments under Section 104 of the Patents Act 1990, which ATF sought to dismiss. The opposition was heard on 15 February 2005, with both parties submitting written arguments.

The central legal issue was whether the opposition raised by Rynand should be dismissed in whole or in part. Specifically, the court had to determine if the grounds and particulars of the opposition were adequate and relevant to the proposed amendments. The opposition raised three grounds: (1) the amended claims did not fall within the scope of the original claims, (2) the amendments did not comply with the clarity and succinctness requirements, and (3) the fee for the amendment request was not paid within the required timeframe.

The court examined each ground and its particulars to determine their admissibility. Regarding Ground 1, the court found that while there was scope for argument regarding the scope of the amended claims, the opposition was not manifestly groundless. Ground 2’s particulars related to clarity and fair basis, and although some particulars were deemed irrelevant and not admissible, others were permissible. Ground 3, concerning the fee payment, was withdrawn by Rynand. The court concluded that Ground 1 and certain particulars under Ground 2 could proceed, but specific particulars under Ground 2 were directed not to be available at the opposition hearing.

The court did not find sufficient evidence to suggest bad faith or ulterior motives on the part of Rynand, and therefore, the conduct of the opponent was not considered relevant to the dismissal decision. The opposition was partially successful, and thus, no costs were awarded to either party.

In summary, the court directed that certain particulars of the opposition not be admissible at the hearing of the S104 opposition. The opposition was not dismissed in its entirety, and the time for service of evidence was extended to three months from the date of the decision.

Orders