Bartlem Pty Ltd v CMMC Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1218
Intellectual property
Bartlem Pty Ltd v CMMC Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1218
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - patents - infringement - "pith and substance" of the specification - whether the language of the claim has been ignored and a test of functional equivalence applied - whether the inventive step is based on the choice and arrangement of the particular combinations, as opposed to an improvement over the known collection of integers
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - patents - revocation - priority date of patents - whether claims are fairly based on the disclosures contained in the provisional specification
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - patents - compliance with ss 40(2)(a) and (3) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) - whether claims are fairly based on what is disclosed in the specification
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - patents - manner of manufacture within s 6 Statute of Monopolies - whether the invention claimed is a manner of manufacture - whether the invention was an analogous use of known integers - whether inventive step disclosed in complete specification
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - patents - obviousness - prior art base - whether the invention claimed had inventive step when compared to the prior art base - whether integers were part of common general knowledge
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - patents - novelty - compared with prior art base - consideration of the test "reverse infringement" for novelty
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 40, 18, 7
Electrical & Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1939) 56 RPC 23 Cited
Ludlow Jute Co Ltd v Low (1953) 70 RPC 69 Cited
Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1988) 13 IPR 385 Cited
Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8 Cited
Sunbeam Corporation v Murphy-Richards (Aust) Pty Ltd (1961) 180 CLR 98 Cited
Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 Cited
Re Erickson's Patent (1923) 40 RPC 477 Cited
Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 Applied
Old Diggers Pty Ltd v Azuko Pty Ltd (2000) AIPC 91-571 Cited
Sami S Svendsen Inc v Independent Products Canada Ltd (1968) 119 CLR 156 Cited
Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 Cited
Winner v Ammar Holdings Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 205 Cited
Clark v Adic (1875) LR 10 Ch App 667 Applied
Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236 Cited
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Aust) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 Applied
Radiation Ltd v Galliers and Klaerr Pty Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 36 Applied
Continue reading Bartlem Pty Ltd v CMMC Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bartlem Pty Ltd v CMMC Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1218
- Case
- [2001] FCA 1218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether CMMC had infringed the patents owned by Bartlem, and if so, whether the patents were valid and enforceable. The court was also required to determine if the patents were invalid and should be revoked. The court considered evidence and submissions from both parties, including expert evidence on the technical aspects of the patents and their alleged infringement.
The court found that CMMC had not infringed Bartlem's patents. The court held that the technology used by CMMC did not fall within the scope of the claims of the patents, and therefore there was no infringement. The court also found that the patents were valid and should not be revoked. The court held that the patents were sufficiently clear and met the requirements for patentability. The court dismissed both the applicant's claim for infringement and the respondents' cross claim for revocation.
The court ordered that the applicant's claim for infringement be dismissed, and that judgment be entered on the claim for the respondents with costs. The court also ordered that the respondents' cross claim for revocation be dismissed, and that judgment be entered on the cross claim for the applicant with costs. The costs were to be taxed if not agreed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant's claim for infringement of Australian Patents 664820, 692882, 698806 and 723748 ("the Patents") against the respondents be dismissed.
2. Judgement be entered on the claim for the respondents with costs, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.
3. The respondents' cross claim for revocation of the Patents be dismissed.
4. Judgment be entered on the cross claim for the applicant with costs, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.