Legal Research
Cases
Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Limited v Orica International Pte Ltd

Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Limited v Orica International Pte Ltd

Case [2025] APO 8

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Limited v Orica International Pte Ltd [2025] APO 8
Case: [2025] APO 8
Decision Date: 17 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.

Actions

Citations

Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited and DetNet South Africa (Pty) Limited v Orica International Pte Ltd [2025] APO 8

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Jusand Nominees Pty Ltd v Rattlejack Innovations Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 178
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…– and not ancillary matters that do not relate to the core invention itself.[214] [214] Jusand Nominees Pty Ltd v Rattlejack Innovations Pty Ltd (2023) 300 FCR 408 at [193].…
Sandoz AG v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH [2023] FCA 1321
Citation 2 (Para 2)

…] Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 at [24]. [7] Sartas No 1, supra at [485]-[486]. [8] [2023] FCA 1321 at [151] to [152].…
Airco Fasteners Pty Ltd v Illinois Tool Works Inc [2023] FCAFC 7
Citation 3 (Para 2)

…proach the issues of construction with any regard to the alleged infringing articles,[8] better understood for present purposes as the prior art. [4] [2023] FCAFC 7 at [48]. [5] Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1529 ( Sartas No. 1 ); (1994) 30 IPR 479 at [485]-[486]. [6] Kimberley-Cla…
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Wyeth LLC (No 3) [2020] FCA 1477
Citation 4 (Para 3)

…se given above for support, I do not find the opponent’s submissions persuasive. [217] Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Wyeth LLC (No 3) [2020] FCA 1477 at [543].…
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v BASF Plant Science GmbH [2020] FCA 328
Citation 5 (Para 2)

…re the receiver system was configured in this manner. [43] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial research Organisation v BASF Plant Science GmbH [2020] FCA 328. [44] The specification as accepted, page 29, lines 12 to 17 cross references International Publication No. WO 2007/124538.…
Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 2
Citation 6 (Para 99)

…[101] Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 2 at [99].…
Mylan Health Pty Ltd (formerly BGP Products Pty Ltd) v Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd (formerly Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd) [2019] FCA 28
Citation 7 (Para 192)

…[102] Mylan Health Pty Ltd (formerly BGP Products Pty Ltd) v Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd (formerly Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 28 at [192], Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 2 at [91]-[93].…
Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd v Streetworx Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 29
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…ust be useful, that is, attain the result promised for the invention by the patentee.”[220] [citations omitted] [220] [2016] FCAFC 29 at [118]-[121].…
AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 30
Citation 9 (Para 5)

…rt in determining, by reference to expert and other evidence, whether an invention as claimed does not involve an inventive step.”[27] [27] [2015] HCA 30 at [23].…
Generic Health Pty Ltd v Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft [2014] FCAFC 73
Citation 10 (Para 71)

…[100] Generic Health Pty Ltd v Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft [2014] FCAFC 73; 314 ALR 91 at [71].…
Bradken Resources Pty Ltd v Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 944
Citation 11 (Para 3)

…phasis] [95] JMVB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Camoflag Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1474. [96] Bradken Resources Pty Ltd v Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 944 at [219].…
JMVB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Camoflag Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1474
Citation 12 (Para 3)

…ntially in the prior art document : Hill v Evans at LJ Ch 463; IPR 7.”[96] [original emphasis] [95] JMVB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Camoflag Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1474. [96] Bradken Resources Pty Ltd v Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 944 at [219].…
Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8
Citation 13 (Para 2)

…y Ltd [1994] FCA 1529 ( Sartas No. 1 ); (1994) 30 IPR 479 at [485]-[486]. [6] Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 at [24]. [7] Sartas No 1, supra at [485]-[486]. [8] [2023] FCA 1321 at [151] to [152].…
Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…a patent is novel. He is the person who will judge whether a patent is obvious.”[3] [2] Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980 at [70]-[72]. [3] Ibid at [70].…
Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd [1977] HCA 19
Citation 15 (Para 2)

…her the alleged anticipation would, if the patent were valid, constitute an infringement.”[52] [52] Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd [1977] HCA 19 at [20]; 137 CLR 228 at [235].…
Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Apotex Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 214
Citation 16 (Para 3)

…context of the specification and in light of the prevailing common general knowledge and state of the relevant art at the priority date.”[9] [9] [2013] FCA 214; 100 IPR 451 at [139].…
Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 936
Citation 17 (Para 2)

…esent purposes as the prior art. [4] [2023] FCAFC 7 at [48]. [5] Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1529 ( Sartas No. 1 ); (1994) 30 IPR 479 at [485]-[486]. [6] Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 at [24]. [7] Sartas No 1, supra a…
Alistair Mann v Electronic Pain Assessment Technologies (epat) Pty Ltd [2023] APO 1
Citation 18 (Para 3)

…pe device did not possess all of the features of the present claims. [211] Alistair Mann v Electronic Pain Assessment Technologies (epat) Pty Ltd [2023] APO 1 at [113].…
Reckitt Benckiser LLC v S C. Johnson & Son, Inc [2017] APO 35
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…ication and asking whether there is any evidence that the applicant was aware of a better method of performing the invention.[210] [210] Kineta, Inc. [2017] APO 35 at [24].…

AI Chat coming soon