Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kolex Pty Ltd - [2020] APO 12

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kolex Pty Ltd [2020] APO 12

Patent Application: 2011265354

Title:An electrical connector with insulation displacement contacts

Patent Applicant:                   Kolex Pty Ltd
Opponent:  Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd
Delegate:  Dr V. Z. Kolev
Decision Date:  24 February 2020
Hearing Date:  25 November 2019, in Canberra

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 59 opposition to grant of a patent – novelty – inventive step – prior art documents consulted under regulation 5.23 – an electrical connector – insulation piercing contacts – a passageway for receiving insulated conductors flat along the longitudinal direction of the passageway – opposition unsuccessful – application amended – late summaries of submissions – costs not awarded
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Mr George Griziotis of Maxwells Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys Pty Ltd

Patent attorney for the opponent: Mr Peter Dummer of Wallington-Dummer Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2011265354

Title:An electrical connector with insulation displacement contacts

Patent Applicant: Kolex Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 24 February 2020
DECISION
The opposition is unsuccessful on all grounds. Subject to appeal, I direct that the patent application proceeds to grant.
I do not make an award of costs.
REASONS FOR DECISION

Throughout this decision, unless explicitly stated otherwise, any reference to an Act or a section, subsection, etc. of an Act refers to the Patents Act 1990 (the Act), and any reference to Regulations or a specific regulation refers to the Patents Regulations 1991 (the Regulations). In addition, any reference to the Commissioner refers to the Commissioner of Patents.
BACKGROUND
The matter relates to patent application 2011265354 (the Application) in the name of Kolex Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The Application was filed on 21 December 2011 and it does not claim an earlier priority date.
The Application was advertised as accepted on 25 August 2016. A notice of opposition to grant was filed on 29 November 2016 by Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd (the Opponent), together with an application for extension of time under paragraph 223(2)(a) to file a notice of opposition. This application for extension of time was subsequently granted.
The statement of grounds and particulars (the SGP) was filed on 28 February 2017, together with the four documents mentioned in the SGP and referred to as D1 to D4.
The evidence in support was completed on 18 May 2017. The evidence in answer was completed on 22 August 2017. The evidence in reply was completed on 23 October 2017. On 27 October 2017, the Opponent filed a request to amend the SGP, however this request was not allowed.
Following a correspondence with the parties, Delegates of the Commissioner issued two directions as follows:
· On 12 December 2017, a direction to the effect that the information filed as evidence in reply is not properly in reply in its entirety, hence this information is not in evidence.
· On 09 March…

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 Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kolex Pty Ltd 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: [2020] APO 12
Decision Date: 24 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd opposed the grant of a patent to Kolex Pty Ltd on the basis that it was not novel and did not involve an inventive step. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The patent in question was for an electrical connector with insulation piercing contacts, featuring a passageway designed to receive insulated conductors flat along the longitudinal direction of the passageway. The dispute centred on whether the patent met the criteria for novelty and inventive step as outlined in the relevant patent legislation.

The court had to determine whether the claimed invention was novel over the prior art, which included documents identified under regulation 5.23. The court also needed to decide if the invention involved an inventive step, given the prior art. The court examined the technical features of the invention, including the specific design of the passageway and the arrangement of the contacts, to assess whether these features amounted to a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. The court considered the submissions from both parties and the arguments presented regarding the interpretation of the relevant patent laws.

The court concluded that the patent was novel and involved an inventive step. It found that the specific design of the passageway and the arrangement of the contacts constituted a non-trivial departure from the prior art. The opposition was therefore dismissed, and the patent was granted. The court also noted that the late submission of summaries did not warrant the awarding of costs against Kolex Pty Ltd. The decision was in favour of Kolex Pty Ltd, with the opposition unsuccessful and the patent granted.

Orders