Lucas Industries Ltd v Chloride Batteries Australia Ltd

JUDGMENT No. ........ .......,..

-7

I "

I N T'HE	FEDCFSL	COljliT	O F A U S T I V L I A	)
)

V.G, No. 111 of 1977

VICTORIA	REGISTRY	--	l
)

GENERFjL

D I V I S I O N

)

QUESTTO>I

RESERVED

BY TIIE SUPRE!4E

COURT OF VICTORIA-

BETWEEN :

LUCAS INDLJSTRIES

LIMITED

Plaintiff

CHLOIIIDE

BATTERIES

AUSTRALIA

LI>lITEi?

---

Defendant

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Bowen C . J . ,

Smithers and Nirnqlo JJ.

DATE O F ORDER:	3rd March,	1978
WHERE MADE:	Sydney

THE

COUriT

ORDERS

THAT:

The yuestlon reserved for the consideratlon

this Court by Crockett J. by his ordcr of 17 th November 1977

be answered : N o

The applicant pay to the respondent Its costs

the application In thls Court and	3.n the Supreme Court
of Vlctorla.

CATCIIWORDS

Prac t ice . ’and Procedure

Act ion

for

in f r ingemen t

p a t e n t a n d c o u n t e r - c l a i m f o r r e v o c a t i o n

Order

for

examinat ion of

w i t n e s s overseas

Relevance

ev idence

Obviousness of

invent ion.

P a t e n t s A c t 1952 s . 1 0 0 (1)

Kules of t h e Supreme

Court

Vic to r i a

.37

r . 5 .

LUCAS IFDUSTRIES LIXITED v. CHLORIDE EITTERIES AUSTR4LIA __-

L I Y I T E D

V . G .

111 of

1 9 7 7

Coram:

Bowen

C. J. , Smithers

and Nimmo JJ.

3rd

March,

1978.

Sydney.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

VICTORIA REGISTRY

V.G. No.111 of

1977

1 - ..

GENERAL

DIVISION

QUESTION RESERVED BY THE SUPREME

COURT OF

VICTORIA

BETWEEN :

LUCAS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

P l a i n t i f f

AND :

CHLORIDE BATTERIES AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Defendant

CORAM:

Bowen

C . J . ,

Smithers

and Nimmo JJ.

&.A,

+h(&

F & E ~ E - ~ , 1 9 7 8.

J U D G M E N T

BOWEN

C. J:

The q u e s t i o n

b e f o r e

t h e

C o u r t

i s whether

le t ter

of r e q u e s t i n London

s h o u l d i s s u e

for

the

examina t ion

one

Sven

Uno

Fa l l ;

i n t h e U n i t e d

Kingdom

o r

s u c h o t h e r p l a c e i n t h e U n l t e d

Kingdom as may be

t hough t

p rope r

o r ,

i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , w h e t h e r

t h e

C o u r t

s h o u l d

o r d e r

s p e c i a l

e x a m i n a t i o n

t h e

s a i d

S v e n

Uno

Fa lk .

Dur

ing

t he

hea r ing

a p p e a r e d

t h a t

i f t he

Cour t

were i n

favour of

making an o r d e r ,

t h e p a r t i e s w o u l d

prefer

t h a t

o r d e r

for

s p e c i a l e x a m i n a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n

for

l e t te r

r e q u e s t .

I t

also

a p p e a r e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t m i g h t w i s h

t o

e x t e n d t h e

order

t o a n o t h e r w i t n e s s

or witnesses,

i f

it were

g ran ted .

was

t h o u g h t

l i k e l y

t h a t

t h e p a r t i e s

c o u l d a g r e e

upon

the

examine

a n d

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

upon

t h e terms

t h e

o r d e r ,

i f a f t e r judgment,

leave

was

g iven

t o b r i n g i n s h o r t m i n u t e s .

- 2 -

THE PROCEEDINGS

The question arises in an action for infringement

of Australian Letters Patent

No. 407,778 brought

by Lucas

Industries Limited, the plaintiff, against Chloride Batteries

Australia Limited, the defendant, by writ of summons issued out

of the High Court of Australia on 1st May 1975 pursuant to

s.113

of the Patents Act 1952 as that section then stood. The defendant

filed a defence denying infringement and also alleging invalidity

of the patent for reasons appearing in particulars of

ob~ections

delivered with the defence. The defendant also counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on the grounds dleged in the particulars

of objections. The counterclaim was brought by virtue

of s.115

of the Patents

Act 1952 as

it then stood.

The statement of claim with particulars of

infringement was delivered on 4th June 1975, the defence and

counterclaim with particulars

of objections on 11th July 1975

and reply and defence to counterclaim

on 22nd December 1975.

On 9th October 1975 minor amendments were made by the defendant

to the particulars of objections by consent.

On 5th August 1976 an order was made which provided

(inter alia) that expert evidence be on affidavit with the

usual rights of cross examination and affidavits of each party

in chief be filed and served

on or before 13th September 1976.

Provision was also made fixing times for filing and serving affidavits in reply.

- 3 -

Pursuan t

t o

t h i s o r d e r t h e p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a n d

se rved

two

a f f i d a v i t s a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a n d s e r v e d f o u r .

On 28th

September

1976

f u r t h e r o r d e r

was

made

g i v i n g t o t h e

defendant leave t o make

c e r t a i n amendments

t o i t s amended

p a r t i c u l a r s

o b j e c t i o n s on

ce r t a in terms

and

condi t ions .

The

d e f e n d a n t d e l i v e r e d f u r t h e r

amended

p a r t i c u l a r s o f o b j e c t i o n s

da t ed 12 th Oc tobe r

1976.

1st

February 1977 the Pa ten ts

Amendment

A c t

1976

came i n t o

f o r c e .

T h a t

A c t amended

ss.113,

115

and

1.16,

i n s e r t e d

new

s . 6 A

a n d s u b s t i t u t e d

new

s s . 1 4 6

and

148.

O n

t h e

same

d a t e

s . 9

o f t h e J u d i c i a r y

Amendment

A c t

1 9 7 6

came

i n t o

force

a n d t h a t s e c t i o n i n s e r t e d

new

s . 4 4

i n t h e J u d i c i a r y

A c t

1903

as amended.

The

e f f e c t

o f

t h e s e

amendments

was

t h a t t h e

Supreme

C o u r t o f . V i c t o r i a

became

p r e s c r i b e d c o u r t u n d e r t h e P a t e u t s

h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r a n d d e t e m m e p a t e n t i n f r i n g e m e n t

actions

sad coun te rc l a ims fo r r evoca t ion and

t h e

High Court

had

power

t o remit

t o t h e Supreme Court

pursuant

t o

s . 4 4

o f t h e

J u d i c i a r y A c t

cases

which had been

commenced

i n t h e High

Court

(Beecham

Group

Limited

v .

Bris tol-Myers

& Co.

(1977) 1 4 A.L.R.

591)

5th October

1977

was

o r d e r e d t h a t t h i s a c t i o n a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m

b e r e m i t t e d o r d e r e d t h a t t h e a c t i o n p r o c e e d

t o t h e

Supreme

Court

Victoria.

I t w a s

f u r t h e r

i n

t h e

Supreme Court

i f t h e

s t e p s a l r e a d y

taken

had been taken in the Supreme Court .

Fol lowing

the

o rder

o f

28 th

September

1 9 7 6 ,

t h r e e

f u r t h e r a f f i d a v i t s

were

f i l e d a n d s e r v e d b y e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s .

S u b j e c t

t o

spec ia l ag reemen t be tween t he pa r t i e s p rov id ing fo r

t h e s u p p l e m e n t i n g o f e x p e r t e v i d e n c e i n c h i e f

a f f i d a v i t s

each pa r ty

upon

one

s p e c l f i c s u b j e c t m a t t e r , t h i s c o m p l e t e d

t h e e x p e r t

' e v i d e n c e i n c h i e f .

I n

e a r l y

November

1 9 7 7 b o t h p a r t i e s d e s i r e d t o

apply t o t h e Supreme Court

VictorLa

t o f i x times

f o r f i l i n g

a n d s e r v i n g a f f i d a v i t s i n r e p l y ,

save

c h a t t h e

plaintiff

d e s i r c d

for

t h e p u r p o s e , i n t e r

a l i a ,

p r e p a r i n g

i t s

a f f i d a v i t s i n

r e p l y ,

f i r s t

t o o b t a i n p r o d u c t l o n a n d i n s p e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n

d o c u v e n t s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f p e r s o n s n o t p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t l o n .

I t i s s u e d a writ

subpoena

duces

tecum and

sununons

pu r suan t

t o

Order

Rule

o f t he Ru les o f t he Supreme Cour t

o f V i c t o r i a . the 10 th and

o r d e r s

o f

t h e

Supreme

C o u r t

d a t e d

r e s p e c t i v e l y

1 6 t h November

1 9 7 7

t h e w r i t of

subpoena

was

s e t

a s i d e

and the from each of

sumnmns d ismissed .

Appeals

(Nos.

V.G.

1 0 8 and 1 0 9 of

1 9 7 7 )

'-hese

o r d e r s

were

hea rd

t h i s C o u r t i m m e d i a t e l f

b e f o r e t h i s

matter.

summons

d a t e d 8 t h

November

1 9 7 7 t h e a p p l i c m t /

d e f e n d a n t a p p l i e d t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f V i c t o r i a f o r a n o r d e r t h a t

a l e t t e r of Sven Uno Palk .

o f r e q u e s t d o i s s u e f o r t h e e x a m i n a t i o n i n t h e U n i t e d K i n q d c :

an o rde r

of t h e Supreme

Court

made by

consent

t h e

summons

was

amended

t o l n c l u d e a n a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v s

f o r

o r d e r t h a t S v e n

Uno

Palk be cxammed before

s p e c i a l e s a m i a e r

i n

t h e U n i t e d

Kingdom

t o be

agreed

upon

t h e p a r t i e s .

I n s u p p o r t

i t s

summons

t h e a p p l i c a n t / d e f e n d a n t f l l c d a n d s e r v e d

a f f i c l a v i t

sworn on r e s p o n c l e n t / p l a i n t i f f f i l c d

8th

November

L977 by

Michael

John

Owen.

I n o p p o s i t i o n

the

and	s e r v e d a n a f f i d a v i t s w o r n

- 5 -

on 15th November 1977 by Ian Sydney Goddard. The summons came

on for hearing before the Supreme Court

on 16th and 17th

November 1977. The learned Supreme

Court Judge did not declde the

matter. Instead he decided the question should be reserved for the

consideration of this Court pursuant

to s.26 of the Federal

Court

of Australia Act 1976. The question reserved, which

has already

been mentioned, was stated in the form

of a special case pursuant

to Order 6 Rule 2 of the Federal Court

of Australia Rules.

Before the Supreme Court Judge, objection had

been taken to paragraphs

10 and 11 of the affidavit

of Michael

John Owen sworn

on 8th November 1977 in support of the application.

These paragraphs were admitted by his Honour subject

to objection.

He did not rule upon them. When the matter came before this

Court

application was made for leave

to file a further affidavit

Michael John Owen sworn

on 9th Decem5er 1977. This

was not

opposed and leave

was given to the applicant/defendant

to flle

this affidavit. Leave was also given to the respondent/plaintiff

to file an affidavit

in reply sworn

by John Michael Dowling

13th December 1977. Some argument took place on objections

the admissibility of paragraphs 10 and 11 of Mr. Owen's earlier

affidavit and paragraphs

4 and 5 of his later affidavit. But in

the result these objections were withdrawn and the evidence In

question was admitted.

- 6 -

EXAMINATION O F WITNESS ABROAD

o r d e r

f o r

e x a m i n a t i o n

o f

wi tnes s

ab road

may be

made

t h e Supreme Court

Vic to r i a "where

s h a l l a p p e a r

necessary

for t h e

p u r p o s e s

j u s t i c e "

( V i c t o r i a n

Supreme

Court

' i

Rules

0 .37

r .5 ;

c f .

High

Cour

Rules

0 .37

r .3 ) .

Al te rna t ive ly ,

le t ter of

r e q u e s t may

i s sued

(V ic to r i an

0 .37

r .6A;

cf.

High

Court 0.37

r . 4 ) .

The

g r a n t i n g

o f an o r d e r

is a

matter

o f j u d i c i a l

discretion

t o

b e e x e r c i s e d a c c o r d i n g t o

the

c i rcumstances o f

the

p a r t i c u l a r

case.

The

p a r t y

s e e k i n g

t h e

o r d e r

m u s t

show

t o

t h e

s a t i s f a c t i o n of

t h e C o u r t t h a t

the

wiL1ess

i s

o u t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n ,

tha t

h i s

evidence

material

a n d t h a t h i s a t t e n d a n c e w i t h i n

tl-e

j u r i s d i c t i o n

c a n n o t

b e

p r o c u r e d .

t h e s e

matters

are

e s t a b l i s h e d ,

g e n e r a l

r u l e a n o r d e r

w i l l be

made.

However,

d e p z r t u r e

rom

the normal method

of trial. The

Court

recognizes

it may i n v o l v e

delay

and

expense

and

i f

t h e c r e d i b i l i t y

t h e w i t n e s s

i s

l i k e l y

t o be

i n i s s u e w i l l d e p r i v e t h e

t r i a l Judge

t h e o p p o r t u n i t y

seeing a n d

a s s e s s i n g

t h e

w i t n e s s .

T h e

r u l e

r e f e r s

t o

its

b e i n g

" n e c e s s a r y

f o r

t h e

p u r p o s e s

j u s t i c e " .

The

C o u r t

i n

e x e r c i s i n g

i t s

d i s c r e t i o n w i l l w e i g h

t h e

i n t e r e s t s

o f

b o t h

p a r t i e s

(see

genera l ly

Hard

Rubber

Co.

P t y .

Limited

v .

General Tire .S

Rubber Co.

(1972)

1 2 9 C.L.R.

521 a t p.528

and

cases

t h e r e c i t e d o n a p p e a l

a t

p.547; see also Hume-Williams and

Macklin,

Evidence

Commission

2nd

edn.

pp.30

e t

seq.)

I n the

p r e s e n t

case,

there

d o u b t t h a t S v e n

Uno

F a l k , t h e w i t n e s s p r o p o s e d t o b e e x a m i n e d , r e s i d e s o u t o f t h e

j u r i s d i c t i o n i n

Sweden

and

cannot

compclled

t o

at tend.

The

- 7 -

evidence is less satisfactory regarding the possibility of hls

being persuaded to come

to Australia for the trial. There has

been litigation regarding a similar invention in London

the United Kingdom between companies associated with the the

parties. Mr. Falk attended in London and gave evidence. However,

the evidence of Mr. Owen is that a Mr.

King, Patents Officer of

Chloride Group Limited of London, informs him he has made enquiries

of Mr. Falk who has told him that

he is not willing to come

Australia though he

is prepared to

come to London to give evidence

upon commission or pursuant to a letter of request. Mr.

Kin9

further informs him that Mr. Falk's employer, Nife Junqer

A . S .

of Sweden, has also advised that

it will not release Mr. Falk to

come to A ustralia although

it would agree to his visiting London

to give evidence. Having regard to the time-scale and costs involvec

with modern transport,

it is not easy

to appreciate why this

attitude is taken. However, that is the evidence and Mr. Falk's

attendance cznnot be compelled. The main issue remaining, therefore,

is whether the applicant has shown

to the Court's satisfaction

that Mr. Falk can give evidence which is material. The degree

satisfaction required may vary with the circumstances of each

particular case.

I proceed, however, on the general principle that

it is sufficient for the applicant

to establish it according to the

balance of probabilities (Hardie Rubber

Co. Pty. Limlted v. General

Tire & Rubber Co. (1973) 129 C.L.R. 521 at p.558).

The main

contest between the parties has been as to the materiality	of Mr.
Falk's evidence, that is, its relevance and admissibility.	On

this aspect it is necessary to consider, the letters patent, the

issue to which his evidence

is said to relate, namely, obviousness

o r

l ack o f i nven t ive - s t ep and t he na tu re

the evidence which

i t

claimed

M r .

Fa lk could g ive .

LETTERS PATENT

Letters

P a t e n t

No.

4 0 7 , 7 7 8

i n r e s p e c t

o f

"Electric S t o r a g e B a t t e r i e s "

were

g r a n t e d

upon

a p p l i c a t i o n

lodged on h i t h e r t o t h e b a t t e r y

Apr i l

1 9 6 6 .

According

t o t h e s p e c l f i c a t i o n

box

and

l i d

have qeneral ly been

made

h a r d r u b b e r w i t h t h e l i d s e c u r e d t o t h e b o x w i t h

p i t c h a d h e s i v e .

h a s a l s o b e e n s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e t o

make

t h e

i n t e r c e l l

connec t ions

wi th connec to r s

i n v e r t e d

U-shape

e x t e n d i n g o v e r t h e p a r t i t i o n

wa l l s .

The

p r i m a r y

u s e

o f

t h e s e

b a t t e r i e s

i s

i n

motor

vehic les .

V e h i c l e b a t t e r i e s

are

s u b j e c t t o s e v e r e

stresses

a r i s i n g

from

t h e i r

c o n d i t i o n s

use.

Wi th

these

stresses i n mind,

it w i l l b e

a p p r e c i a t e d

t h a t

e f f e c t i v e

s e a l i n g

t h e

b a t t e r y

l i d

t o

t h e

b a t t e r y

box

around

its per iphery

and

a l s o

a l o n g t h e p a r t i t i o n

w a l l s

i s

o f s u b s t a n t i a l i m p o r t a n c e t o a v o i d l o s s o f b a t t e r y

e l e c t r o l y t e

a n d

i n t e r - c e l l

l e a k a g e .

V a r i o u s

a d h e s i v e s

h a v e

b e e n

considered f rom

tlme t o time b u t as mentioned the

commonly used

adhes ive

i s

p i tch .

There

has

been

ex tens ive

research

and

deve

lopment

t o devise manufac tu re .

improvements

i n

ba t t e ry cons t ruc t ion and me thods o f

Desp i t e

t h i s ,

t he

rubbe r

and

p i t ch

adhes

lve

cons

ruc

ion

has

remained

roduct

ion

and

use

for

genera t ions .

The

s p e c i f i c a t i o n

a s s e r t s

t h a t

t h e

p r i m a r y

o b j e c t

t h e

p r e s e n t

i n v e n t i o n

t o

p r o v i d e

c o n v e n i e n t

a n d

r e l i a b l e

method

manufacturing

improved

electric

s t o r a g e

b a t t e r i e s .

The

- 9 -

method

inc ludes

the

s teps

of :

moulding

t h e r m o p l a s t i c

b a t t e r y

b o x h 2 v i n g . a t o p b o x p e r i p h e r a l e d g e a n d I n t e g r a l p a r t l t i o n

valls

d e f i n i n g

s e p a r a t e

b a t t e r y

c o m p a r t m e n t s

o r

ce l l s ;

moulding

t h e r m o p l a s t i c b a t t e r y l i d

for

t h e s a i d b a t t e r y

box,

s a l d

b a t t e r y l l d h a v i n g

l l d p e r i p h e r a l e d g e a d a p t e d t o e n g a g e

szld

box

per iphera l edge and wal l

cng<aging zones adaptod

engage

t h e

t o p

e d g e s

s a i d p a r t i t i o n v a l l s ;

p l a c i n g p a c k s

b a t t e r y

p l a t e s a n d s e p a r a t o r s w i t h i n s a i d b a t t e r y c o m p a r t m e n t s ,

formxlcj

in te r -ce l l

(Sonnec t ions t h rough s a id pa r r i t i on

walls,

p l a c i n g

box

h e a t c r i n p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h s a i d

box

p e r i p h e r a l e d g e

and

wal

top edr jes

i n

o r d e r t o s o f t e n

them by heat ing,

c lacinc;

l i d h e a t e r i n p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h s a i d l i d p e r i p h e r a l

ed;e

and

t h e

wall

engaging

zones

o f s a i d l i d i n o r d e r t o s o f t e n

them

hea t ing ,

sengag

ing

box

and

hea t e r s

f rom sa ld phys i ca l

c o n t a c t w i t h s a i d b a t t e r y

b o x a n d b a t t e r y l i d r e s p e c t i v e l y ,

and

p r e s s i n g

said

b a t t e r y

l i d o n t o s a i d h a t t e r y

box

weld

t h e

s o f t e n e d l i d p e r l p h e r a l e d g e t o t h e s o f t e n e d

box

p e r i p h e r a l

edye

an2

t h e so f t ened wall

engaging

zones

s a i d l i d

t o t h e n respective

s o f t e n e d w a l l t o p e d g e s t o t h e r e b y s c a l s a i d b a t t e r y l i d t o s a l d

b a t t e r y

box and said bat tery compartments

from

e a c h o t h e r .

Claim

1 c la ims

method

manufactur ing an

e lec t r ic s t o r a g e b a t t e r y

i n c l u d i n g

t h c

above

ste2.s.

T h e

p r e f e r r e d

t h c r r n o p l a s t i c

m a t e r l a 1

m e n t i o n e d

i n

t h e

s p e c i f i c a t i o n

i s

polypropyl.ene.

Claim

c la i las

a method a s

c l a imcd

i n

any

p rcced lng

c l a im,

where

t he

s a id

b a t t e r y

box

and

s a i d b a t t e r y l i d a r e b o t h

made

polypropylcne.

- 10 -

OBVIOUSNESS

has been mentioned the only ground

i n v a l i d i t y

t o which

M r .

F a l k ' s e v i d e n c e

i s

claimed

t o r e l a t e i s obviousness

or l a c k of

invent ive-s tep .

This

g round

based

s . l 0 0 ( 1 ) ( e )

t h e P a t e n t s

A c t ,

which

i s as

fo l lows:

" l O O ( 1 )

p a t e n t may

r evoked ,

e i t he r

who l ly

i n so f a r as it relates t o any claim of

t h e

c o m p l e t e s p e c l f i c a t i o n ,

one

o r more of

the fo l lowing g rounds ,	bu t	on	no	o t h e r
ground: -
.....

(e)

t ha t t h e

i n v e n t i o n ,

so fa r as claimed

i n

any

claim,

was

cbv ious and d id no t

i n v o l v e a n i n v e n t i v e s t e p ,

h a v i n g r e g a r d

t o what

was

known

o r u s e d

i n A u s t r a l l a

b e f o r e t h e p r i o r l t y d a t e o f t h a t

claim;

..... I,

When

t h e matter

comes

t o t r ia l t h e C o u r t

w i l l have

t o cons ider what

was

known

and used

i n A u s t r a l l a

a t t h e p r i o r i t y

date,

namely ,

t he

15 th

Apr i l

1966 .

The q u e s t i o n w i l l be

w h e t h e r i n A u s t r a l i a

a t t h e 1 5 t h A p r i l

1966

t h e p a r t i c u l a r s t e p

claimed

invent ive would have been obvious

t o

an "unimagina t ive

s k i l l e d t e c h n l c i a n " ( T e c h n o g r a p h P r i n t e d C i r c u i t s

L i m i t e d

and

Rockley

(Elec t ronics )

L imi ted

(1972)

R.P.C.

346

a t p .355) .

This

h y p o t h e t l c a l t e c h n i c l a n

w i l l have

t o be assumed

t o b e i n

posses s ion

every th ing which

was

t h e n

common

general knowledge.

one view he

a l s o h a v e t o b e a s s u m e d t o

know

e v e r y t h i n g

d i s c l o s e d b y t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n t h e s u b j e c t ( i n c l u d i n g p r i o r

s p e c i f i c a t i o n s )

a n d

r e v e a l e d

ar t ic les

t h e n

i n

use.

t h e o t h e r

view,

he w i l l have t o be

assumed

t o have

knowledge of documents

- 11 -

- -

subject

t o some

q u a l i f i c a t l o n ,

f o r example,

t h a t

h e s h o u l d

assurned

only

have knowledge

those which would have been

known

t o

d i l i g e n t s e a r c h e r s k i l l e d i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r

a r t

(See

Grahanl H a r t

( 1 9 7 1 ) Pty. L m i t e d v.

S.W.

H a r t &

Cor.lDany Limi tcd ,

F u l l High

Court,

22nd

December,

1 9 7 7 ,

un repor t ed ) .

A s

t o vihlch

of t h e s e d e f i n i t e l y

two

v iews shou ld bc adop ted has no t been f i na l ly and

r e s o l v e d .

I n

t h i s

c a s e ,

I will proceed

upon

the

basis

t h a t

t h e

f o r m e r

v i e w ,

less

f a v o u r a b l e

t o

t h e

i n v e n t o r ,

w h i c h

was

taken

Williams

i n 1I.P.M.

T n d u s t r i e s

P t y .

L j m i t c d

v .

Gera rd

Indus t r l e s

L imi t cd

( 1 9 5 7 )

9 8

C.L.R.

424

should

a p p l i e d .

(See -

Craham Eart (1971) Pty . L i m ~

t c d v .

S.W.

Hart & Company Ljnitcc?

( s u p r a )

p e r A i c k i n

J.) .

I :

I n any

event

presumably,

the

Court

will

conf ine

i t s

a t t e n t i o n t o t h e

documents

s ta ted

i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r s ( P a t e n t s

A c t ,

s . 1 6 6 ;

Sunbeam

Corporatlon

Lxnitec!

v .

3lorphs

Rlchards

(Aust.)-

P t y .

L i r i t e d

(1961)

A.L . J .R .

212

p.219) .

FALK ' S EVIDENCE

A s

s t a r t i n g p o i n t

t o t h c e v l d e n c e w h i c h

M r .

Falk

might

give, we

have a t r a n s c r i p t of

ths

idence

which

i n f ac t

gave

i n t h e p a t e n t s u i t I n

London

heard

beforeW~~ikQb.?

i n t h e

IIigh

Court

i n which ~udgment

was

d c l i v e r e d

4 t h A p r i l

1 9 7 7 .

I n t h e U n i t e d

1:incJdom

Letters

P a t e n t No.

1 0 8 7 4 6 6

ob ta ined

Lucas

Ccmpany

( a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r e s p o n d e n t )

w l t h

p r i o r l t y d a t e

111

February,

1 9 6 4 were

i n i s s u e i n p r o c e c d l n g s

- 12 -

between the Lucas

Company

p l a i n t i f f a n d

Ch lo r ide

Company

( a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h

t h e

a p p l i c a n t )

defendant .

The

specification

is not

before’

us.

However,

from

t h e r easons €or judgment of

d t + ~ ~ ~ o J . ,

which

have,

may

b e g a t h e r e d t h a t t h e i n v e n t i o n

claimed

was

i n r e s p e c t o f t h e b u t t w e l d i n g o f

the

l i d

and

case

electric

s t o r a g e b a t t e r y c o n s t r u c t e d

polypropyl.ene

o t h e r

s u i t a b l e

t h e r m o p l a s t i c

m a t e r i a l .

The

claims

appear

t o have

been

expressed

somewhat

d i f f e r e n t l y

from

t h o s e i n

the

Aus t r a l i a i l

p a t e n t .

The

v a l i d i t y o f

t h e p a t e n t

was

a t t acked

the ground

( i n t e r a l i a )

obviousness

Var

ious

tnesses

gave

ev idence

bear ing

t h i s i s s u e ,

i n c l u d i n g

M r .

Falk.

g a v e

e v i d e n c e

t h a t

h e l i v e d i n

Sweden

and

was

employed

N i f e

Junger

A.B.

( “ J u n g e r ” ) ,

a Swedish company engaged i n the manufac tu re

ba t t e r i e s .

H e

s a i d h e

was

e l ec t ro -chemis t .

graduated

a t the

Techn ica l

Col lege a t Malmo i n Sweden i n 1948.

Thereaf te r

jo ined

company

G.C.

Faxe which produced lead acid b a t t e r i e s .

After abou t

e ighteen

months

ne j o ined

Junge r .

f i r s t , h e

was

head of

t h e

p h y s i c a l

l a b o r a t o r y .

T h e n

h e

h e l d

v a r i o k s

p o s i t i o n s

u s u a l l y

connec ted

research

and

deve lopment .

1 9 6 1 he

was

head

t h e B a t t e r y

Development

Division,

which

a t t h a t time

took care

l e a d - a c i d

b a t t e r i e s

a n d

a l k a l i n e

bat ter ies .

I n 1968

became

Technical

Manager

t h e B a t t e r y D i v i s i o n a n d h a s h e l d t h i s

p o s i t i o n

s i n c e .

i s a n

i n v e n t o r

h o l d i n g

a b o u t

t e n

p a t e n t s .

t h e a u t h o r

v a r i o u s p a p e r s i n l e a r n e d j o u r n a l s p u b l i s h e d

i n America,

the Un i t ed

Kingdom,

Sweden

and

h’orway

d e a l i n g

w i t h b a t t e r y s y s t e m s

from

t h e e l e c t r o - c h e m i c a l p o i n t

view.

is the co -au tho r

book

e n t i t l e d ” A l k a l i n e S t o r a g e

Batteries”

which was

w r i t t e n with a

D r .

A . J .

S a l k i n d of

E.S.B.

p u b l i s h e d

i n

- 1 3 -

1959.

J u n g e r s t a r t e d

i n

t h e t h i r t i e s w i t h l e a d - a c i d

batteries

and

la te r ,

around

1 9 6 0 ,

h a d l e a d - a c i d b a t t e r y

factories

i n Sweden,

Norway,

F in l and

and

Braz i l .

Junge r

was

p r e s e n t l y

conce rned ma in ly w i th a lka l ine ba t t e r i e s , t hough one

s u b s i d i a r y , t h e

company

i n B r a z i l ,

was

s t i l l concerned

i n

l ead -ac id batteries.

Though

based

i n Sweden,

M r .

F a l k

v i s i t e d

the o a n d s t a r t e d

ther

companies .

When

p la s t i c s

appea red ,

l ooked

i n to

t hem

t o

u s e

some

them

i n t h e

f i f t ies .

I n l a t e

1961.

Junger

was

u s i n g p o l y e t h y l e n e f o r

some

b a t t e r i e s

for

s t a t i c

use.

The l i d was

jo ined

oxyace ty l ene

f l ame .

l a t e

1 9 6 1

f a u l t s

wor r i ed

t hem.

Junge r

l ooked

i n to

d i f f e ren t

inds

weld ing

methods

Fa lk

t es ted v e r s i o n

th ree

methods

gas

to rch ,

a l ready

i n use;

. a n

a u t o m i s e d

t h a t ;

a n d ,

b u t t

w e l d i n g .

I t

was found

bu t t

weld

ing

produced

s t r o n g e r case.

He produceC

l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t d a t e d 1 2 t h

March

1 9 6 2

r e l a t i n g

t o

h i s

tests.

Heat ing

was

e f f e c t e d

h o t

plates

p l a c e d b e t w e e n t h e l i d a n d

case

and

later

removed

t o p e r m i t t h e l i d

and

case

t o b e p r e s s e d

t o g e t h e r .

Fol lowing M r .

F a l k ‘ s s u c c e s s f u l

tests,

Junger

adoptec

t h e p r o c e s s o f b u t t - w e l d i n g t h e l i d a n d

case

i t s

b a t t e r i e s .

The

evidence proceeded:

“Q. We you designed your

go b a c k

j u s t

l i t t l e time,

j u s t

b e f o r e

machlne yourselves

February 1 9 6 2 .

How

d l d

y o u

f i r s t

c a r r y

o u t

expe r imen t s

w i th

p l a t e

we ld ing?

What

brought it t o you?

What d i d

y o u

t r y ?

The

t h i n g t h a t

b r o u g h t u s t o

was

t h a t w e

1 4

s t u d i e d t h e l i t e r a t u r e a n d

f o u n d t h i s

method

i s t r i e d - one of

englneers found

i n a

German

j o u r n a l a n d

m y s e l f a l s o

saw

t h i s method descr ibed in what

t h i n k

w a s an Amerlcan journfil

n o t q u l t e

s u r e

a b o u t

t h a t .

B u t

t h i s

l e d

i n t o

t r y i n g

t h e

method and

the

first tests we made were

made

ve ry s imply u s ing more o r

less

f l a t i r o n i n g

tool

f o r

t h i s .

w e

d i d

not have any very

advamed

a p p a r a t u s

i n t h e

beginning.

U s i n g t h a t

f l a t

i r o n i n g t o o l , w h a t

sorr

r e su l t s

d i d y o u g e t ?

The

very

f i r s t r e s u l t s were

n o t so good,

because

w e

e x p e r i e n c e d s t l c k m g o f t h e

plast ic

material

t o

t h e h o t

s teel .

How

d i d

you

d e a l w i t h t h a t ?

The

f i r s t t h i n g

w e

t r i ed was

t o s p r a y

s i l i c o n e c o a t i n g o n t o t h e h o t I r o n , b u t t h i s t u r n e d o u t n o t t o b e v e r y e f f e c t i v e .

After

t h a t w e

t r i e d w i t h

T e f l o n s p r a y

i n s t e a d , b u t t h a t	a l so showed	t o b e n o t	so	ve ry
good.

Did you

t r y a g a i n ?

Yes,

then went over

t o T e f l o n f o i l s

T e f l o n c l o t h a n d t h a t p r o v e d t o b e v e r y

e f f ic ien t .

What brought

you

t o Tef lon?

I t h i n k it was general

knowledge

a t t h e time

t h a t T e f l o n

was

someth ing t ha t

you

cou ld

h e a t

u p

t o ,

s a y ,

20OoC.

without

problems

and

d i d n o t s t i c k t o m o s t t h i n g s . "

The two

j o u r n a l s

r e f e r r e d

t o

were

n o t

i d e n t i f i e d .

I t is n o t

sugges t ed t hey

were

i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n

l i terature

p a r t i c u l a r i s e d

for

the purpose

the p roceed ing

i n t h e Supreme Court

Victoria.

M r .

Fa lk

a lso

gave ev idence

t ha t

i n

Sep tember

1 9 6 1 he had worked wi th po lys tyrene and recent ly wi th opaque

polypropylene but had

a t t h a t time

developed

good

method

f o r

s e a l i n g

c o v e r s

t o

c o n t a i n e r s .

A p p a r e n t l y

h e

was

t h e n r e f e r r i n g

'- 15 -

t o no

good method

c e m e n t i n g t h a t

material.

\AHE%%D?.

, i n

h i s

r e a s o n s f o r

j u d g m e n t ,

u s e d

M r .

F a l k ' s

e v i d e n c e

i n t h e

f o l l o w i n g

way.

H e

s a i d :

"In Sweden a well-known manufacturer

of batteries,

Ju rgens

( s i c ) , as I was

t o l d by Mr.

Fa lk ,

t h e i r t e c h n i c a l m a n a g e r , h a v i n g s t a r t e d

hea t we ld ing

another method,

came

to b u t t

we ld ing

fo r

po lye thy lene .

They

came

t o it

having

exper ienced

some

d i f f i c u l t l e s w l t h t h e

earlier

welding technique which they

had

o p e r a t e d ,

as I was

t o l d by Mr.

F a l k ,

through

c o n s i d e r a t i o n

t h e t e c h n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e

i n 1 9 6 1 .

The

fac t , however,

t h a t t he

approach

was

q u i t e p l a m l y t h o u g h t b y

Mr.

Fa lk

t o

be no more than an

obvious

development

the sys t em

h e a t weldlng originally

adopted by

them

is i n no

sense

conc lus ive . "

L a t e r h e s a i d :

"There i s undoubtedly

evidence

p r e d i s p o s i t i o n

among

ba t t e ry manufac tu re r s f avour ing t ongue

and

groove

cons t ruc t ion ,

and ,

indsed ,

i f

p o s s i b l e ,

cement.

I t 1s a g a l n s t

t h l s

b a c k g r o u n d

t h a t

have

t o

d e c i d e w h e t h e r b u t t w e l d i n g b y c o n t a c t

h e a t i n g

was

obvious

a t

t h e r e l e v a n t d a t e i n

t h i s p a r t l c u l a r f i e l d

manufacture.

h a v e s a i d , h e a t w e l d i n g

was

p l a i n l y a n

o b v i o u s p o s s i b l l i t y f o r t h e r m o p l a s t i c s ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y

- 16 -

po lypropy lene .

Con

tac

hea t

s ea l ing

was

one obvious

method

of h e a t

s e a l i n g .

From

t h e

ev idence

now

s t a n d s e s t a b l l s h e d t h a t b o t h

Globe.and Jurgnen (sic) and B l e l , and indeed

C h l o r i d e ,

q u i t e

i n d e p e n d e n t l y ,

as well

Lucas,

a r r i v e d

a t t h i s

p a r t i c u l a r

t e c h n i q u e .

T h r e e

t h e

o rgan i sa t ions ,

apa r t

f rom

Lucas

Independen t ly

a r r i v e d a t

b u t t

w e l d i n g .

I n t h e w o r l d

today

is ,

t o my

m i n d ,

a b s u r d t o s u g g e s t

t h a t

activit ies

i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s a n d t h e

way

i n which

t e c h n i q u e s h a v e d e v e l o p e d i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s

shou ld be d i s r ega rded .

It seems

t h a t t h e

method

but t -weld ing

for

batteries

d i scove red and u sed by Fa lk i n

1 9 6 2

was

n o t

known

u s e d i n t h e U n i t e d

Kingdom

i n

1 9 6 4 ,

o the rwise

cou ld

have

been

r e l i e d

upon

a n a n t i c i p a t i o n .

H i s Lo rdsh ip

ses

Fa lk ' s ev t h a t issue presumably,

idence

t he

i s sue

obv iousness .

was

concerned with what would have

been obvious

t o

a n u n i m a g i n a t i v e s k i l l e d t e c h n i c i a n i n

February

1 9 6 4 ,

hav ing r ega rd

t o what

was

t h e n known

and used

i n the

Un i t ed

Kingdom.

P e r h a p s

t h e

r e f e r e n c e

t o

" t h e

w o r l d

today"

i n t e n d e d t o s u g g e s t

t'nat

i n t h i s f i e l d

knowledge

was

common

u n i v e r s a l a n d

so,

presumably,

the

knowledge

which

Mr.

Falk

had

was

available i n t h e

U n i t e d

Kingdom.

I n a

world

of speedy

communicatlons,

i n w h i c h i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n s

o p e r a t e d i r e c t l y

and

t h r o u g h s u b s i d i a r i e s w i t h

l i t t l e

regard

for

t e r r i t o r i a l b o u n d a r i e s ,

w i l l n o t b e s u r p r i s l n g t o

f i n d t h a t t h i s

i s

i n r e l a t i o n t o

many

f i e lds o f knowledge .

Bu t i n a

p a t e n t s u i t , i f

it i s so,

presumably

it can

e s t ab l i shed

appropr i a t e

ev idence .

I t canno t be

s imply

basic

a s s u m p t i o n

i n

p a t e n t

s u i t s .

f a r as

t h i s Cour t i s

adv i sed ,

was

n o t e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e

t o

b e t h e

case

t h e U n i t e d

Kingdom,

b u t t h i s

i s n o t

matter

for

t h i s C o u r t

- 17 -

and I say

about

it.

q u e s t i o n

1 d e a l

w i t h

l a te r ,

whethe r t he ev idence be fo re

s u g g e s t s o r e s t a b l i s h e s

was

t h e p o s i t i o n

i n A u s t r a l i a

a t

t h e r e l e v a n t d a t e .

The Court

was

informed by Counse l tha t an appea l

was

pending

f rom

the

dec

ion

b-hFD@

C o u n s e l

f o r

t h e

applicant

s a i d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e g i v e n i n t h e

case

i n t h e U n i t e d

Kingdom

was

n o t p u t f o r w a r d

b e i n g p r e c i s e l y t h e e v i d e n c e

was

p r o p o s e d

t o

c a l l

from

Mr.

Fall:;

h e s a i d f u r t h e r

h e d i d n o c

pu t it

forward as s a y i n g t h a t

ht\rrfc%LDd ‘ S acceptance of

it 2nd

t h e

way i n which

used

it was n e c e s s a r i l y correct.

p u t it

forward

t o i n d i c a t e t o t h i s C o u r t

t h a t

t h e a p F l i c a n t

was

not

engaged simply on

wi ld

goose

chase .

C o u n s e l f o r t h e a ? p l i c a n t t h e n a r g u e d

tha t

I f

r e l e v a n t t e c h n i c i a n t a k e s

s t e p a n a l o g o u s

t o

t h e a l l e g e d

i n v e n t i v e s t e p , t h e e v i d e n c e

what

he d id

i s

material

ev idence

t o assist i n v e n t i v e

t h e C o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e s t e p

o b v i o u s ;

t h a t

t h e

t es t

w h e t h e r

t h e

s t e p

obvious

i s a n o b j e c t i v e

tes t and

it does

n o t matter where

i n

t h e w o r l d t h e s t e p

i s

t a k e n

l o n g as

taken by

r e l e v a n t

t echn ic i an and

viewed

i n t h e l i q h t

what was

known

and used

i n

A u s t r a l i a ;

and ,

tha t

the

ev1der .ce

was

impor tan t

and

s imply

p e r i p h e r a l

c o r r o b o r a t i v e .

H e r e f e r r e d

t o

f o u r

cases

i n which

he submi t t ed t he Cour t had cons i ce red ove r seas ev idence :

Technograph Pr j .nted Circui ts

L i r . i r sd

Mills

and

Rockley

( E l e c t r o n l c s )

L i m i t e d

( 1 9 7 2 )

R.D.C.

346;

General

Railway Slg&

Co. Limited v. Westinghouse Bra!<? and

S iqna l

Co.

Limited

(1939)

- 18 -

5 6 R.P.C.

295;

The

General

T i r e

and

Rubbcr

Co.

The

Firestone

Tyre

and

Rubber

Co.

L i m i t e d

(1971) R.P.C.

173;

and Douglas

Packing

Co.

( Inco rpora t ed ) v. William

Evans

Co.

(Hereford

and

Devon)

L i m i t e d

( 1 9 2 9 )

4 6

R.P.C.

493.

Counsel for the r e sponden t

submitted t h a t it was

i m p o r t a n t t h a t r e l e v a n c e a n d a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e s u g g e s t e d

ev idence be dec lded

now

r a t h e r t h a n

a t

t h e

t r ia l ,

because

of t h e t e r r i t o r i a l n a t u r e

p r e j u d i c i a l

n a t u r e

o f

t h e

e v i d e n c e .

H e

s t r e s s e d t h e

of	knowledge and usage against which an

Aus t r a l i an

pa t en t

mus

j udged .

Indeed

rgued

t he

ma te r i a l

was

n o t

o n l y

l i m i t e d

t e r r i t o r i a l l y ;

was

f u r t h e r

r e s t r i c t e d

t h e i s s u e

v a l i d i t y t o t h i n g s or documents of

which

pa r t i cu la r s

had

been

g iven .

s u b m i t t e d

t h a t

e v i d e n c e

what was

done

i n

e t h e r c o u n t r i e s a n d t h e g e n e r a l h l s t o r y o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t

t h e a r t w a s

a d m i t t e d i n p a t e n t

cases

where

what

was done

e l sewhere

had

been

pub l i shed

i n

t he

- j u r i sd i c t ion .

t o t h e

cases

r e l i e d o n

t h e a p p l i c a n t f o r t h e a d m i s s i o n

ove r seas ev idence ,

submi t t ed

t hese

were

d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e .

I n

T e c h n o q r a p h

P r i n t e d

C i r c u i t s

L i m i t e d

v .

Mills

and

Rockley

(Elec t ronics )

L i m l t e d

appea red t he

matter

r e f e r r e d t o had become

known

i n t h e

j u r i s d i c t i o n ,

p e r h a p s

par t of

t h e common

general

knowledge.

I n

General

Rai lway

Slgnal

C o .

Limited

Westinghouse

Brake

S i g n a l

Co.

L imi t ed and i n

The

General

T i r e

and

Rubber

C o .

The

F i r e s t o n e

Tyre and agreed or accepted

Rubber

Co.

L imi t ed t he ove r seas ev idence admi t t ed

w a s

bo th

sides.

Douglas

Packinq

C o .

( I n c o r p o r a t e d )

V. William Evans S Co.

(Hereford & Devon) Limited f e l l i n t o

t h e

same ca tegory as the

Tcchnograph

Case

any

event

the

passage

- 19 -

- .

i n

the judgment o f

Romer

o n w h i c h t h e a p p l i c a n t p l a c e d

r e l i a n c e

( a t p .508)

d id

no t

assist

t h e a p p l i c a n t i n

r e l a t i o n

t h e

use

which he sought

t o make

o f

t o s u p p o r t

t h e u s e o f

M r .

Fa lk ' s

idence

sue

obv iousness .

A l t e r n a t i v e l y ,

w a s

a r g u e d f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t

t h a t

i f

the ev idence o f what

M r .

F a l k d i d i n

Sweden

cou ld be

relevant

on t he i s sue o f

obv iousness ,

cou ld on ly be

i f

t h e r e were

l i n k i n g e v i d e n c e , t h a t

i s ,

i f

were

e s t a b l i s h e d

M r . Falk 's r e l e v a n t k n o w l e d g e i n A u s t r a l i a

knowledge

was

s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e

same

t h e

a t

t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e

o r

i f

t h e

common general knowledge

and

other known material i n Sweden

i n 1962 was

s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e

same

t h a t i n A u s t r a l i a i n

1966 .

C o u n s e l f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e

t h i s C o u r t

was

t h a t wha t pu t Fa lk

t o t h e

method of butt-welding

was

German

jou rna l wh ich h i s a s s i s t an t had r ead and an Amer ican

journal

which

had

himself

read

a t t h e time.

I t w a s n o t

s u g g e s t e d

t h a t e i t h e r

t h e s e j o u r n a l s

were

pub l i shed

i n A u s t r a l i a

and,

of cour se , b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t

t hey

were

n o t c i t e d i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r s .

The

ev idence

common

general

knowledge

i n Sweden i n 1962 was

t h e same

(or less) t h e n common

g e n e r a l

knowledge

i n A u s t r a l i a

i n

1 9 6 6 .

The

a f f i d a v i t s of

Michael

John

Owen sworn

8th

November and

9 th

December

1977

f e l l f a r s h o r t

o f

e s t a b l i s h i n g

t h a t

c o n c l u s i o n .

And

i n

a n y

e v e n t ,

a s

h e

h a d

s a i d ,

M r .

Fa lk was

a s s i s t e d t o h i s r e s u l t

t h e two

j o u r n a l s

which were

n o t shown

t o b e p a r t

t h e common

general knowledge

e i t h e r

c o u n t r y .

- 20 -

Counsel

for

t h e r e s p o n d e n t f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t

M r . Fa lk t e c h n i c i a n e n v i s a g e d b y t h e a u t h o r i t i e s a n d h i s e v i d e n c e

was

n o t h i m s e l f t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l u n i m a g i n a t i v e s k i l l e d

t he s t ep wh ich he t ook , whe the r

was

r ega rded

i n v e n t i v e s t e p

an obv ious s t ep hav ing r ega rd

t o

his

knowledge and qua l i f i ca t ions , cou ld no t

assist

t h e

t r i a l

Judge.

also a r g u e d t h a t t o t h e e x t e n t

Mr.

Falk would

g iv ing ev idence o f

what

d id

and

when

h e d i d

it, he was

a wi tness as t o facts .

I n vievr of

some

s u g g e s t e d

u n s a t i s f d c t o r y

f e a t u r e s o f h i s e v l d e n c e b e f o r e

it was

d e s i r a b l e

h e s h o u l d b e t e s t e d i n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n

before

t h e

t r ial

Judge ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y

t o t h e a c c u r a c y

h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n .

T h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d

are

some

importance.

A p a t e n t e e the g round c f obv iousness

who

f a c e s

de te rmined a tkack upon va l id i ty

upon

want

i n v e n t i v e

step is

a l r e a d y c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e d l f f i c u l t y t h a t t h e J u d g e ,

who

h a s

t o

d e c i d e t h i s i s s u e , n e c e s s a r i l y d o e s

from

t h e v a n t a g e

p o i n t

h i n d s i g h t .

I n

a d d i t i o n

t h e J u d g e h a s

t o

env i sage

h y p o t h e t i c a l t e c h n i c i a n

who

i s

supposed

t o have

fund of

knowledge ,

which

inc

ludes

what

the exper t s

say

i s

common

g e n e r a l

knowledge

and

a lso

every th ing which

i s

d i s c l o s e d b y t h e l i t e r a t u r e

t h e subject

( i n c l u d i n g

p r i o r

s p e c i f i c a t i o n s )

a n d

r e v e a l e d

ar t ic les t h e n i n use o r ,

a t l eas t ,

much

o f t h i s

l a t te r

informat ion as would be

known

t o

d i l i g e n t s e a r c h e r s k i l l e d

i n

t h e a r t .

This

knowledge

i s

p a r t i c u l a r i s e d

a n d

g i v e n

i n

e v i d e n c e

I ... '

- 21 -

I	.
i

I	I
I

so t h a t by t e c h n i c i a n w i t h

t h e e n d

t h e case

t h e J u d g e h a s

t o assume

fund

knowledge

which

i s

s u c h , t h a t o n e

may

sometimes

d o u b t w h e t h e r a n y s i n g l e t e c h n i c i a n a l i v e

a t

t h e

l	time i n fac t possessed it.

I f ,

i n a d d i t i o n , o n t h e i s s u e

obviousness

i n v e n t i v e s t e p , t h e p a t e n t e e m u s t a l s o

face

what

has

been

done

by t echn ic i ans ab road

i n

d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t , t h i s c o u l d

well

i	I	i n t r o d u c e	a	new	d i m e n s i o n	i n t o	p a t e n t	s u i t s .	I f	o n e	p a r t y
I
!

can

ca l l ev idence of

t e c h n i c i a n who

s o l v e d

t h e

p r o b l e m

i n

Sweden

b e f o r e

t h e

A u s t r a l i a n

p r i o r i t y

d a t e ,

c a n

t h e

o t h e r

p a r t y

ca l l ev idence

t e c h n i c i a n s i n , s a y

France

and

I t a l y ,

who

w r e s t l e d w i t h t h e p r o b l e m a n d f a i l e d

t o

s o l v e

it?

And

e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g

was

a n i n v e n t i v e s t e p

or ,

o n t h e c o n t r a r y ,

was

obv ious i n any

t h e s e c o u n t r i e s , r e a l l y

assist

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

i	Judge	i n	h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l A u s t r a l i a n
l	I

t e c h n i c i a n ? I f

e v i d e n c e

was

g i v e n e s t a b l i s h i n g w h a t

was

known

and

u s e d i n t h o s e c o u n t r i e s

a t t h e

time

was

t h e

same

what

was

j	l	known	a n d u s e d i n A u s t r a l i a	a t	t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e , t h e n , t h e
i~
! I
l

evidence

might

of assistance.

This

would

involve

a d i f f i c d t

enquiry and

u n l i k e l y t h a t p r o o f

s u b s t a n t i a l i d e n t i t y

: l

would

of ten

ach ieved .

One

d i f f i c u l t y i s t h a t what

i s known

and used i n any

country

a t a n y

p a r t i c u l a r

time

i n v o l v e s

b o t h

p o s i t i v e

a n d

n e g a t i v e

f a c t o r s .

I n

some cases it is par t of the

conven t iona l wisdom

tha t some th ing

i s n o t w o r t h t r y i n g

i s

u n l i k e l y

t o be

success fu l .

Each

t echn ic i an

i s

t h e

c a p t i v e

o f

; j

i	h i s own community.
1 1

- 22 -

Notwi ths tanding

m i s g i v i n g s i n t h i s r e g a r d ,

i f it

were

p roved t ha t wha t

was

known

and used in

Sweden

i n

February

1 9 6 2 was

s u b s t a n t i a l l y similar

t o ( o r n o

greater

than)

what

was known and

used

i n Aus t ra l ia

a t 1 5 t h A p r i l

1966

would

n o t

b e d i s p o s e d t o r u l e o u t t h e e v i d e n c e

a t

t h i s

stage

i r re levant

o r i n a d m i s s l b l e .

T u r n i n g t o t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e u s

t h i s

a s p e c t

t h e

case,

which

i s

m a i n l y c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t s

of Michael

John

Owen

sworn on the 8 th

November

and 9th

December

1 9 7 7

a n d t h e a f f i d a v l t o f J o n n m c h a e l

Dowling

swern

13th

December

1977 ,

it appea r s t o me

t h a t

t h e e v i d e n c e

f a l l s

f a r

s h o r t

e s t a b l i s h i n g

t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h a t w h a t

w a s

known

and used

i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e b a t t e r y a n d p l a s t i c

a r t s was

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

similar

i n b o t h c o u n t r i e s .

B u t C o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t a r g u e d t h a t

was

n o t n e c e s s a r y

t o prove what

was

known

a n d u s e d i n

Sweden

i n

February

196?.

I t

was

s u f f i c i e n t

t o p r o v e

M r .

' Fa lk ' s

s t a t e

knowledge 'and

t h e n ,

t o compare t h a t w i t h w h a t

was

known

and used

i n A u s t r a l i a

a t

t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e a n d t o

show

t h a t Mr.

Falk 's

knowledge

was

t h e same or no greater t h a n t h a t

Aus t r a l i an

t echn ic i an .

The re

are

g r a v e

d i f f i c u l t i e s

i n

r e g a r d i n g

M r . Fa lk k n o w l e d g e w i t h t h a t a v a i l a b l e

d ivo rced f rom h i s

own

community

and

i n comparing h l s

t o

h y p o t h e t i c a l A u s t r a l i a n t e c h n i c i a n

But t h e r e i s a more

fundamental

object ion.

t h e

e v i d e n c e

b e f o r e

Mr.

Falk ' s

knowledge

inc luded

the

Amer ican and

German

jou rna l s ,

wh ich

h e s a i d

were

wha t b rough t h im to h i s so lu t ion and t hese j ou rna l s

I .,'

- 23 -

wece

n o t available i n Austral ia .

I n o ther

words ,

Mr.

F a l k ' s

knowledge appears

t o

greater

than tha t which would be

p o s s e s s e d b y a n A u s t r a l i a n t e c h n i c i a n

a t

t h e p r i o r i t y d a t e .

Indeed,

even

i f

had been e s t ab l i shed t ha t wha t

was

common

general knowledge

and

what

was

p u b l l s h e d i n

Sweden

i n 1 9 6 2

was

s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e

same

t h a t i n A u s t r a l i a

i n 1 9 6 6 ,

t h i s add i t iona l knowledge posses sed by

M r .

Falk would be

f a t a l

o b j e c t i o n

t o

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

c o n s i d e r t h e r e

i s

s u b s t a n c e i n t h e c o n t e l l t i o n

Counse l €o r t he r e sponden t t ha t

M r .

F a l k

was

f a r

removed

f r o m

t h e

n o t i o n

t h c

u n i m a g i n a t i v e

s k i l l e d

t e c h n i c i a n .

less

impressed by h i s

submiss ion on the need

t o

t e s t

M r .

Fa lk

I n

c r o s s - e x a n i n a t i o n

b e f o r e

t h e

t r i a l

Judge.

The

point

n o t

w i thou t subs t ance ,

b u t

i f

t h o u g h t t h e a p p l i c a n t

was

o the rwise

e n t i t l e d t o a n o r d e r ,

would not

re-~ect

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o n t h i s

ground

a lcne.

shou ld

rhaps

add

t ha t

d o

n o t

c o n s i d e r

t h a t

t h e case9 c i c e d by

Counsel

for

t h e a p p l i c a n t

a s t o t h e u s e

overseas

evidence

are

a n y a s s i s t a n c e

t o

h im hav ing r ega rd t o t he

facts

o f t h e p r e s e n t

case.

I n t h e

result ,

c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s

f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h o n t h e b a l a n c e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h a t

M r .

F a l k

w i l l b e a b l e

t o

g i v e r e l e v a n t a n d a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e

t h e

issue

of obviousness .

- 24 -

I N THE FECCRAI. COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1 - .

G E ~ ~ E R A L

D'CVISION

) )

VICTORIA

REGISTRY

) VG No..lll

of 1977

BETWEEN :

LUCAS IVDUSTRIES

LIMITED

P l a i n t i f f

AND :

CHLORIDE BATTERIES AUSTRALIA

LIMITED

Defendant

CORAM:

Bowen C. J., Smithers and Nirmno JJ.

3rd March,

1978.

JUDGMENT

SMITIIERS J :

I have had the advantage

of reading the reasons for judkment

preparcd by the Chief Judge in this matter. For the reasons

expressed by the Chief Judge	I would make the order proposed
therein.

, . . - -

-.-.

. -

[1978] FCA 7

3 Mar 1978