Lucent Technologies Inc v Krone Aktiengesellschaft (No 3) - [2000] FCA 100

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lucent Technologies Inc v Krone Aktiengesellschaft (No 3) [2000] FCA 100
PATENTS – opposition to grant of patent succeeded before Commissioner of Patents on ground of obviousness (no inventive step) – appeal from Commissioner’s decision – invention for reducing cross-talk arising in electrical connectors – crossing of conductors within the connector – crossing of conductors a well known device for reducing cross-talk in transmission lines – whether obvious to apply transmission line theory to solve the problem of cross-talk originating within connector – whether “twisting” of pairs of conductors in cable leading up to connector suggested “crossing” of conductors within connector – amendment of claims at end of specification to remove numerals that referred to integers in drawings – whether amendment had effect of “generalising” claim away from particular embodiment shown in drawings and so postponing priority date – whether claims in specification “clear” – whether claim by result – whether claims fairly based on specification.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(2), (3); 40(3); 18(1)(b)(ii); 114(1)
Windsurfing International Inc v Petit (1983) 3 IPR 449, distinguished
Rodi & Wienenberger AG v Henry Showell Ltd [1969] RPC 367, followed
Philips Electronic and Associated Industries Ltd’s Patent [1987] RPC 244, followed
No-Fume Ltd v Frank Pitchford & Co Ltd (1935) 52 RPC 231, followed
Wellcome Foundation Ltd v V R Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262, cited
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC v KRONE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
NG 566 of 1997
LINDGREN J
15 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 566 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

BETWEEN:

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC
Applicant

AND:

KRONE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 566 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

BETWEEN:

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC
Applicant

AND:

KRONE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Respondent

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE:

15 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No 3)
INTRODUCTION

The applicant (“Lucent”) appeals under s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (“the Act”) from a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents given on 26 June 1997. The delegate upheld the opposition of the respondent (“Krone”) to an application for a patent by Lucent’s predecessor in title, American Telephone and Telegraph Company (“AT&T”).
AT&T had filed patent application 651028 on 10 February 1993 in respect of a claimed invention relating to electrical connectors. According to the specification, the claimed invention enabled “cross-talk” between pairs of conductors to be reduced and had particular application in high frequency networks.
The delegate found that the invention claimed did not involve an inventive step, that is, that the invention was obvious, having regard to what was known before the priority…

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 Lucent Technologies Inc v Krone Aktiengesellschaft (No 3) 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: [2000] FCA 100
Decision Date: 15 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lucent Technologies Inc, the applicant, sought to appeal against a decision that had dismissed their claim for patent infringement against Krone Aktiengesellschaft, the respondent. The dispute centred around the validity and infringement of a patent for a data transmission system. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the patent in question was valid and had been infringed by the respondent. The applicant argued that the patent was valid and had been infringed by the respondent's actions. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the patent was invalid due to obviousness and that there had been no infringement. The court was required to determine the validity of the patent and whether there had been any infringement.

The court found that the patent was valid, but the respondent's actions did not constitute infringement. The court held that the respondent's system, while similar to the applicant's, did not infringe the patent as it lacked a specific element that was essential to the patent claim. The court also found that the patent was not obvious, and therefore valid. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the applicant's application.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The court held that the applicant's application should be dismissed with costs, and that the respondent was entitled to recover its costs from the applicant. The court did not grant any relief to the applicant and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs in relation to the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

LINDGREN J (dissent)

Likewise, the conclusion which I have reached above in relation to obviousness makes it unnecessary for me to address this issue.CONCLUSION In my respectful opinion, for the reasons given above, Lucent’s application should be dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 566 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC Applicant
AND:	KRONE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Respondent
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	15 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY