Legal Research
Cases
Dyson Technology Limited v Jemella Limited

Dyson Technology Limited v Jemella Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 26 February 2025 70 min read

Contents

On this page

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Dyson Technology Limited v Jemella Limited [2025] APO 6

Patent Application: 2019271875

Title:Barrel for hair styling appliance

Applicant:  Jemella Limited
Opponent:  Dyson Technology Limited
Hearing Officer:  Xavier Gisz
Decision Date:  26 February 2025
Hearing Date:  13 March 2024, in Video Conference

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 59 – opposition to grant of a patent – heater for a hair styling appliance – embedded temperature sensor – inventive step – claims are inventive in light of the art pressed – manner of manufacture – sufficiency and support – best method – utility – opposition unsuccessful on the grounds pressed by the opponent – additional document consulted pursuant to Reg 5.23 – some claims do not involve an inventive step – consideration of support pursuant to section 60(3) – some claims do not comply with s 40(3) – opportunity to amend – costs awarded

Representation: Counsel for the Applicant: JPS Ambikapathy
Patent attorneys for the opponent: Davies Collison Cave

Counsel for the Opponent: Ben Mee
Patent attorneys for the Opponent: Spruson & Ferguson

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2019271875

Title:Barrel for hair styling appliance

Applicant: Jemella Limited
Date of Decision: 26 February 2025
DECISION
The opposition under s 59 of the Patents Act 1990 is successful. Claims 1-9, 11-19 and 21-26 do not involve an inventive step. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-26 are not supported by matter disclosed in the specification.

Subject to appeal, the Applicant is given two (2) months from the date of this decision to file amendments that would overcome these adverse findings.
I award costs against the Applicant according to Schedule 8 of the Regulations up to the date amendments were allowed, namely 30 November 2022. Parties are to bear their own costs from 1 December 2022.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background

Patent application 2019271875 (the “Opposed Application”) was filed in the name of Jemella Limited (the “Applicant”) on 25 November 2019. The Opposed Application is a divisional application of 2018263376, itself the national phase entry of PCT/GB2018/051197. Priority is derived from provisional application GB 1707061.6 filed 03 May 2017. Examination was requested on 10 January 2020. A notice under section 27 of Patents Act1990 (Cth) (“the Act”) was filed by Shelston IP on 8 April 2020 followed by another, also filed by ShelstonIP, on 25 January 2021. Two adverse examination reports issued in respect of the Opposed Application before it was accepted on 09 June 2021 and advertised as accepted on 08 July 2021.
The Opponent filed a notice of opposition under section 59 of the Act on 8 October 2021. A statement of grounds and particulars (“SGP”) was then filed on 10 January 2022 followed by evidence in support (“EIS”) on 11 April 2022.
The Patentee proposed to amend their claims on 20 June 2022. A delegate of the Commissioner granted leave to amend the specification on 07 September 2022 and the proposed amendments were allowed unopposed on 30 November 2022. The…

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 Dyson Technology Limited v Jemella Limited 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: [2025] APO 6
Decision Date: 26 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dyson Technology Limited v Jemella Limited [2025] APO 6 is a decision by Xavier Gisz, a Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, regarding an opposition to the grant of patent application 2019271875. The patent application, titled 'Barrel for hair styling appliance', was filed by Jemella Limited (the Applicant) and opposed by Dyson Technology Limited (the Opponent). The Opponent opposed the grant of the patent on various grounds, including lack of an inventive step, lack of utility, and lack of support. The decision found that some claims did not involve an inventive step and lacked support, leading to the opposition being successful on these grounds. The Applicant was given two months to file amendments to overcome these defects. Costs were awarded against the Applicant up to the date amendments were allowed, with parties to bear their own costs from that date.

The decision first identified the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the court. It then outlined the legal issues the court was required to decide, which included whether the claims lacked an inventive step, lack of utility, and lack of support. The court's reasoning and outcome were then described in detail. The decision explained the court's consideration of the prior art base, common general knowledge, and the specific advantages claimed by the Applicant. The court found that some claims did not involve an inventive step in light of the prior art and lacked support, leading to the opposition being successful on these grounds. The final orders were also stated, including the time frame for the Applicant to file amendments and the allocation of costs.

Orders