Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kolex Pty Ltd - [2019] APO 35

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kolex Pty Ltd [2019] APO 35

Patent Application: 2011265354

Title:An Electrical Connector With Insulation Displacement Contacts

Patent Applicant:                   Kolex Pty Ltd
Opponent:  Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd
Delegate:  M. G. Kraefft
Decision Date:  26 July 2019
Hearing Date:  Written submissions completed on 1 May 2019

Catchwords: PATENTS – opposition under section 104 – allowability of amendments under section 102 – compliance with section 102 as a result of the amendment considered – passageway versus floor for receiving each insulated conductor considered – meaning of receiving each insulated conductor flat considered – proposed amendments satisfy requirements of section 102 – proposed amendments allowable.

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Peter Maxwell & Associates
Patent attorney for the opponent: Wallington-Dummer

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2011265354

Title:An Electrical Connector With Insulation Displacement Contacts

Patent Applicant: Kolex Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 26 July 2019
DECISION
The proposed amendments satisfy the requirements of section 102. The proposed amendments are allowable. The opposition is unsuccessful.
Costs in accordance with Schedule 8 awarded against the opponent, Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

Kolex Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) filed patent application 2011265354 on 21 December 2011 (“the priority date”). The application was advertised as accepted on 25 August 2016.
Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd (“the opponent”) filed a notice of opposition to the grant of a patent on 29 November 2016 together with a request for an extension of time under section 223 to file that notice. That request was subsequently granted.
Following the parties’ completion of the evidentiary stages, the applicant filed a statement of proposed amendments to amend the complete specification under section 104. A delegate of the commissioner considered that the request for leave to amend was valid, whereupon the opponent filed a notice of opposition against the allowance of the amendments. The present matter deals solely with this latter section 104 opposition.
SPECIFICATION
The specification describes the invention as relating to an apparatus and a method for making electrical connection with an electrically insulated wire or cable. In particular, the invention relates to an electrical connector with one or more insulation displacement contacts that can be used in electrical power outlet sockets, electrical power switches, electrical junction boxes, power transformers, ballasts for fluorescent lights and other electrical devices.
As background, the specification discusses the typical installation of electrical power outlet sockets in lower regions of a building wall. The sockets have socket receptacles for three plug pins corresponding to an active, a neutral and an earthing connection. Electrically insulated connecting wires are installed within the building wall to connect the respective contacts of the socket receptacles to the mains electrical power source. To provide a secure electrical connection between the connecting wires in the wall and the electrical contacts of the power outlet socket, screw contacts have normally been utilised. This requires insulation to be removed from an end of…

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: [2019] APO 35
Decision Date: 26 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Connected Group Australia Pty Ltd versus Kolex Pty Ltd was before the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary issue revolved around the opposition to a patent application by Kolex, lodged by Connected Group. The dispute centred on the allowability of amendments to the patent application under section 102 of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the amendments sought to address the definition of certain technical terms and their implications on the patent's scope. The court was required to determine whether the proposed amendments complied with the statutory requirements and if they were allowable under the circumstances presented.

The court considered several legal issues, including the interpretation of the term "receiving each insulated conductor flat" and whether the proposed amendments could adequately address the concerns raised by the opponent. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the amendments were substantive and whether they altered the scope of the patent in a way that was not allowable under the law. The primary focus was on whether the proposed changes to the definition of the passageway and the floor for receiving each insulated conductor flat were sufficient to meet the requirements of section 102 of the legislation.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the language of the patent application and the proposed amendments. It concluded that the proposed amendments satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised by the opponent and met the requirements of section 102. The court found that the changes clarified the technical terms in question and did not alter the substantive scope of the patent beyond what was permissible. As a result, the court allowed the amendments to the patent application, finding that they complied with the legislative requirements.

The court's decision was final, with no further orders required beyond the allowance of the proposed amendments to the patent application. The court's ruling ensured that the patent application could proceed with the amended definitions, thereby resolving the opposition brought by Connected Group.

Orders