E I Du Pont de Nemours and Company v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Limited

Case

[2005] FCA 892

1 JULY 2005


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
E I Du Pont de Nemours and Company v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Limited [2005] FCA 892 [2005] FCA 892 1 JULY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

E I Du Pont de Nemours and Company (Du Pont) appealed against decisions of the Commissioner of Patents concerning two patent applications, 686433 and 686434, which related to certain chemical compositions and their use. ICI Chemicals & Polymers Limited (ICI) and Atofina opposed the granting of these patents. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the claims in the patent applications were fairly based on the matter described in the specifications. The court had to consider whether the Ternary Application's claims were adequately supported by the description in the specification, as well as the merits of the oppositions brought by ICI and Atofina. The court also had to decide on the appropriate costs for the appeals.

The Full Court found that the claims in the Ternary Application were indeed fairly based on the matter described in the specification. The court held that the oppositions by ICI and Atofina should be refused, and that the appeals by Du Pont should be upheld. The court also determined that ICI and Atofina should bear the costs of the appeals. The court found the Commissioner's decision to be incorrect and set it aside.

The court ordered that Du Pont's appeals be upheld, the Commissioner's decisions be set aside, and the oppositions by ICI and Atofina be refused. The court further directed that the patent applications 686433 and 686434 proceed to grant. ICI and Atofina were ordered to pay Du Pont's costs of the appeals.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Patent Law

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Patent Validity

  • Opposition to Patent

  • Grant of Patent

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

40

Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

0