Inter Aqua Advance A/S v Bent Urup Holding ApS

Inter Aqua Advance A/S contested the opposition to the grant of a patent by Bent Urup Holding ApS, which involved a fish farming plant based on a recirculated aquaculture system. The dispute was adjudicated in the Australian Patent Office by the Commissioner of Patents. The opposition was based on multiple grounds, including the contention that the invention did not comply with the definition of a manner of manufacture under section 18(1)(a), lacked an inventive step under section 18(1)(b)(ii), and failed to meet the requirements of clarity and support under section 40(3). Additionally, the opponent argued that the specification did not comply with section 40(2). The applicant had also sought to consult additional material under regulation 5.23.

The court was required to determine whether any of the grounds of opposition were valid, particularly focusing on the sufficiency of the invention's disclosure and compliance with statutory requirements. The court considered the evidence provided by both parties, including declarations and exhibits, and assessed the significance of the additional material requested under regulation 5.23. The key legal issues were whether the patent met the statutory criteria for grant and whether the additional material should be considered in the decision-making process.

The Commissioner found that none of the grounds of opposition were substantiated. The court held that the invention was adequately described in the patent specification, complied with the relevant sections of the Patents Act, and that the additional material did not alter the outcome. The evidence did not establish that the invention was not a manner of manufacture, lacked an inventive step, or failed to meet the clarity and support requirements. Furthermore, the public interest and balance of convenience did not warrant the consideration of the additional material. Consequently, the opposition was unsuccessful, and costs were awarded against the opponent. The Commissioner granted the application to proceed with the patent grant.

The Commissioner ruled in favour of the applicant and dismissed the opposition. The court ordered that the patent application proceed to grant and that the opponent bear the costs of the opposition. This decision reinforces the importance of meeting statutory requirements for patentability and the limited circumstances under which additional material may be considered in patent oppositions.