David Cavdarovski Summary

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
David Cavdarovski [2013] APO 60

Innovation Patent: 2013100142

Title:A Thong Sandal Saver Clip

Patentee:  David Cavdarovski
Delegate:  Dr S.D. Barker
Decision Date:  25 November 2013
Hearing Date:  Written submissions were due by 11 November 2013, but were not filed

Catchwords: PATENTS – re-examination – lack of novelty and innovative step – patent revoked

Representation: Patent applicant: Michael Taylor

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Innovation Patent: 2013100142

Title:A Thong Sandal Saver Clip

Patentee: David Cavdarovski
Date of Decision: 25 November 2013
DECISION
I revoke innovation patent 2013100142.
REASONS FOR DECISION

The Commissioner issued a re-examination report on 20 June 2013 in relation to innovation patent 2013100142. The report stated that all claims lacked novelty (and innovative step) in the light of AU 2012100751 (D1). The report stated that the patentee had two months to respond, otherwise proceedings for revocation would be initiated. As no response was filed, a Senior Examiner informed the patentee that a hearing would be conducted based on written submissions, and the patentee was allowed one month to file submissions or propose amendments. No submissions or amendments were filed.
Novelty
The re-examination report refers specifically to Figures 17A, 17B and 17C of D1. These Figures show a device that can be used to repair a thong. The device has a flange attached to a tubular section. The tubular section has a projecting wall that can retain the end of a thong strap. There is a slot running along the device. These are the features of claim 1 of the present innovation patent. I am satisfied that claim 1 is not novel in the light of D1.
The features that are included in claims 2 to 5 relate to the shape of the flange, the location of tubular section within the flange, the nature of the slot and the dimensions of the device relative to its intended use. All of these features are apparent in D1.
All of claims 1 to 5 lack novelty in the light of D1.
Innovative step
D1 discloses a device having all of the features of the claims, for the same use. It follows that there is no innovative step.
Conclusion
The claims lack novelty and innovative step in the light of D1. The patentee has not proposed any amendments, and has not provided any submissions for consideration. I conclude that the patentee has lost interest in the innovation patent. Consequently there are no reasonable prospects that amendments would be filed, so I do not consider it necessary to consider whether to direct amendments. I will revoke the innovation patent.
Dr S.D. Barker
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Cavdarovski was the patentee of innovation patent 2013100142, titled "A Thong Sandal Saver Clip". The Commissioner issued a re-examination report on 20 June 2013, stating that the patent lacked novelty and innovative step in light of a prior patent. The patentee was given two months to respond to the report, but did not respond. The Commissioner then informed the patentee that a hearing would be conducted based on written submissions, with one month to file submissions or propose amendments. Again, no submissions or amendments were filed. Dr S.D. Barker, a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, was tasked with deciding the matter.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the claims of the innovation patent lacked novelty and innovative step in light of a prior patent. The court had to consider whether the features of the claims were present in the prior patent, and whether there was an innovative step. The court also had to consider whether the patentee had lost interest in the patent, and whether there were reasonable prospects that amendments would be filed.

The court found that all of the claims of the innovation patent lacked novelty in light of the prior patent. The features of the claims were present in the prior patent, and the prior patent disclosed a device for the same use. The court also found that there was no innovative step. The patentee had not proposed any amendments, and had not provided any submissions for consideration. The court concluded that the patentee had lost interest in the innovation patent, and there were no reasonable prospects that amendments would be filed. Therefore, the court revoked the innovation patent.

The court's decision was based on the fact that the claims of the innovation patent lacked novelty and innovative step in light of the prior patent. The court found that the features of the claims were present in the prior patent, and the prior patent disclosed a device for the same use. The court also found that there was no innovative step. The patentee had not proposed any amendments, and had not provided any submissions for consideration. The court concluded that the patentee had lost interest in the innovation patent, and there were no reasonable prospects that amendments would be filed. The court revoked the innovation patent.

David Cavdarovski

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established