Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd

Nichia Corporation initiated proceedings against Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia, focusing on the determination of the priority date of claims related to a standard patent for a light emitting device and display device. The dispute centred on whether the claims in the suit defined more than one form of the invention and if they were fairly based on the matter disclosed in the priority documents. The primary issue before the court was the interpretation of the notation (Al,Ga)5 in the claims of the priority documents, specifically whether it required both elements to be present in the phosphor or if the presence of either element was sufficient.

The court examined the expert evidence provided by Dr Bretschneider, an expert in the field of phosphors, who opined that the notation (Al,Ga)5 indicated a phosphor that must contain both Al and Ga. However, the court found that the notation, when read as the applicant contended, covered all possible crystal combinations in the general formula of the claims, including those where only Al or Ga was present. The court further concluded that the invention as claimed was fairly based on the disclosure in the priority documents, with the priority date being 29 July 1996.

The court held that the claims in question defined more than one form of the invention, as understood under section 43(3) of the Patents Act. It rejected the respondent's version of the rewritten claim 3, finding that the priority dates of the forms defined by the claims were those identified by the applicant. The court ordered the parties to prepare draft orders to give effect to its reasons and to address the question of costs if necessary. The further case management hearing was to be scheduled shortly.