Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v ResMed Limited

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited opposed the grant of a patent to ResMed Limited on the grounds that the claims were not supported by the matter disclosed in the specification. The dispute was heard by Kraefft Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents. The central issue before the court was whether the claims in the patent application were sufficiently supported by the disclosure in the specification, particularly in relation to the definition of the specific juxtaposition of components of the CPAP apparatus. The court had to determine if the specification contained an enabling disclosure that would allow a person skilled in the art to perform the invention as claimed.

The court examined the evidence provided by the parties and considered the principles of patent law regarding the requirement for support in the specification. Kraefft Delegate concluded that the claims were indeed supported by the matter disclosed in the specification, as the specification provided an enabling disclosure that met the support requirement. The evidence from both experts, Mr Dickinson and Mr Smith, was considered in the context of the support requirement, and the Delegate found that the specification sufficiently disclosed the invention in a way that would enable a person skilled in the art to perform the invention. Therefore, the Delegate found in favour of ResMed Limited and determined that the opposition to the grant of the patent should fail.

Consequently, the court ruled that the claims were supported by the matter disclosed in the specification. The opposition was unsuccessful, and the application proceeded to grant, subject to appeal. The court also awarded costs in favour of the applicant, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited, in accordance with Schedule 8.