PATENTS - patent for “invalid lifting device and hoists therefor” - lifting method and forms of mechanical apparatus intended to replace “the nurses’ lift” - construction of claims - whether “parallelogram of forces” an integer - whether absence of forward horizontal force at patient’s knees an integer - construction of integer that lifting arm have a “radius comparable to the average length of a human thigh bone” - purposive construction - infringement - validity and revocation - no question of principle.
Re Patent GB 2 140 773 in the name of Impro Ltd; ex parte The Helping Hand Company (Ledbury) Ltd, unreported, Chancery Division (Patents Court), Jacob J, 21 April 1997 followed
THE NESBIT EVANS GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED v IMPRO LIMITED and ARJO LIMITED
NO NG94 OF 1997
JUDGES: WILCOX, HILL and LINDGREN JJ PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 22 OCTOBER 1997
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG94 of 1997
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
THE NESBIT EVANS GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Appellant
AND:
IMPRO LIMITED First Respondent
AND
ARJO LIMITED Second respondent
JUDGES:
WILCOX, HILL AND LINDGREN JJ
DATE:
22 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
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
NG94 of 1997
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
THE NESBIT EVANS GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Appellant
AND:
IMPRO LIMITED First respondent
AND
ARJO LIMITED Second respondent
JUDGES:
WILCOX, HILL AND LINDGREN JJ
DATE:
22 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILCOX J: I have read in draft form the reasons for judgment of Lindgren J. I agree with much he has written but I find myself unable to share his view that the invalid lifting hoists marketed by the appellant, The Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Limited, (“Nesbit”), infringe the subject patent, of which the first respondent, Impro Limited, is the registered proprietor and the second respondent, Arjo Limited, the exclusive licensee. Like my colleague, I will refer to the respondents as “Impro-Arjo”.
My point of departure from Lindgren J is that I think his approach fails to pay proper regard to an essential integer of each of the two claims, numbers 6 and 11, on which the infringement case is based. Lindgren J has set out the text of those claims. It is sufficient for my purposes to note that each claim speaks of attachment points to the lifting arm that are “disposed at a radius comparable to the average length of a human thigh bone”. It is clear from the evidence that the attachment points on both the hoists marketed by Nesbit are so placed as to provide a radius considerably greater than the average length of…
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.
Continue reading Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd [1997] FCA 1092
Case
[1997] FCA 1092
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge concerning a dispute over the interpretation and enforcement of a contractual agreement with Impro Ltd, the respondent. The crux of the matter revolved around the enforceability of certain terms within the contract, specifically those relating to confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. The primary judge had previously ruled in favour of the respondent, determining that the confidentiality clauses were valid and enforceable, and thus dismissing the appellant's claims.
The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the confidentiality and non-disclosure terms within the contract were enforceable and whether there were any circumstances that might render these terms invalid or unenforceable. The court also needed to consider whether there had been any breaches of these terms by the appellant and, if so, what remedies or consequences were applicable under the contract. The appellant argued that the clauses were overly broad and contravened public policy, while the respondent contended that the terms were clear, necessary for protecting its confidential information, and validly included in the contract.
In rendering its decision, the court carefully examined the language of the contract and the context in which the terms were agreed upon. It was established that the terms were explicitly outlined and both parties had demonstrated an understanding and acceptance of them. The court found that the confidentiality clauses were neither overly broad nor against public policy, as they were specifically tailored to protect legitimate business interests. Additionally, the court held that there was no evidence of any breach by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.