Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd - [1998] FCA 1737

FIREBELT PTY LIMITED v. BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED TRADING AS CLEANAWAY and COOLOOLA SHIRE COUNCIL
By Original Action
BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED TRADING AS CLEANAWAY (Cross-Claimant) v. FIREBELT PTY LIMITED (Cross-Respondent)
By Further Cross Action
FIREBELT PTY LIMITED (Second Cross-Claimant) v. BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED TRADING AS CLEANAWAY (Second Cross-Respondent), COOLOOLA SHIRE COUNCIL (Third Cross-Respondent) and STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Fourth Cross-Respondent)
No. QG 92 of 1995
FED No. 1737/98
Number of pages - 36
Intellectual Property

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

DOWSETT J

Intellectual Property - patents - combination patents - whether best known method of performance disclosed in specification - whether claims clear and succinct - whether claims fairly based on matter described in specification - determination of priority date - whether invention a 'manner of manufacture' - whether invention novel or involves an inventive step.

Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 5, s 7, s 18, s 38, s 39, s 40(2), s 40(3), s 43, s 102, s 104, s 114, reg 3.12, reg 3.14

Statute of Monopolies, s 6

Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel & Anor (1960-61) 106 CLR 558 Ref'd

Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 655 Ref'd

Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd & Anor v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1997-8) 40 IPR 243 Ref'd

Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd & Ors (1958-59) 102 CLR 232 Ref'd

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co & Anor v Beiersdorf (Australia) Limited (1979-80) 144 CLR 253 Ref'd

PLACE, 14-24 November 1998 (hearing), 24 December 1998 (decision)

#DATE 24:12:1998

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J. Garnsey QC and Mr C. Carrigan

Solicitor for the Applicant: Xavier Kelly & Co

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A. Crowe and Mr R. Lilley

Solicitor for the Respondent: Deacins Graham & James

DOWSETT J

THE ACTION

The applicant holds Australian Registered Petty Patent No 657082 and alleges that the respondents have breached it. The first respondent cross-claims for revocation of the petty patent. I am presently concerned only with that latter question.

CONTEXT

The dispute arises in the context of relatively recent attempts to facilitate the recycling of waste by pre-sorting in the hands of those producing it, coupled with separate handling, transportation and disposition by waste collection services. In this judgment, I will distinguish between refuse and recyclable material. For present purposes, refuse is waste material which is not to be recycled. Obviously enough, recyclable material is to be so recycled. It is possible to further sub-divide these categories.

Throughout the trial, certain assumptions underlay much of the evidence. Firstly, it appears to have been accepted that for all presently relevant purposes, household waste will be accumulated in standard wheeled bins with attached lids. These are known as mobile garbage bins (MGBs) or "wheelie bins". The form of the bin appears in many of the drawings to which I will refer. The evidence also generally assumed that waste would be collected from such bins in trucks, each operated by one driver only.…

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 Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia 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: [1998] FCA 1737
Decision Date: 24 DECEMBER 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia considered the validity of a petty patent held by Firebelt Pty Ltd for a refuse vehicle designed to collect and separate waste materials. The court examined the patent's compliance with the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and relevant case law. The court found that the patent specification failed to disclose the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention. However, the claims were deemed clear, succinct, and fairly based on the matter described in the specification. The court also determined that the invention was a manner of manufacture, novel, and useful. However, the court held that the invention lacked an inventive step, as it was not obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed before the priority date of the relevant claim. The court's decision was based on the expert evidence presented, which established that the content of the disclosures at the presentations had passed into common general knowledge or was prior art information that a skilled person in the industry could reasonably be expected to have ascertained, understood, and regarded as relevant to their work in that area.

Orders