Legal Research
Cases
Novozymes A/S v DSM IP Assets B.V

Novozymes A/S v DSM IP Assets B.V

Case [2017] APO 4

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Novozymes A/S v DSM IP Assets B.V [2017] APO 4
Case: [2017] APO 4
Decision Date: 17 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Claims 1 – 11, 13, 14 and 16 lack inventive step.

I allow a period of two months from the date of this decision for DSM IP Assets B.V. to file amendments to overcome this ground.

I award costs according the Schedule 8 against DSM IP Assets B.V.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Novozymes A/S v DSM IP Assets B.V [2017] APO 4

Most Recent Citation

Novozymes A/S v DSM IP Assets B.V [2018] APO 2

Cases Citing This Decision

Novozymes A/S v DSM IP Assets B.V [2018] APO 2
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…be heard in the final determination of the opposition, and a hearing was held on 29 November 2017 in Canberra. [1] Novozymes A/S v DSM IP Assets B.V. [2017] APO 4. The original decision…

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) [2013] FCA 162
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…In Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) [117] Jagot J pointed out that lack of utility requires evidence, not just speculation: [117] [2013] FCA 162; 100 IPR 285. "Ultimately, an asserted lack of utility must be established by appropriate evidence, not be mere speculation that the invention will not work or mee…
Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 58
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…ribed in the specification. The High Court in Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [123] approved the words of Gummow J: [123] [2004] HCA 58; 217 CLR 274 at 300 [69]. "the question is whether there is a real and reasonably clear disclosure in the body of the specification of what is then c…
Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59
Citation 3 (Para 16)

…ad ends and the retracing of steps is not the taking of routine steps to which the hypothetical formulator was taken as a matter of course."[66] [65] [2002] HCA 59; 212 CLR 411. [66] [2002] HCA 59; 212 CLR 411 at 436 [58].…
Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8
Citation 4

…141. The High Court in Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [121] explained this requirement as: [121] [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1. "The question is, will the disclosure enable the addressee of the specification to produce something within each claim without new inventions or addit…
Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980
Citation 5 (Para 10)

…ther a patent is novel. He is the person who will judge whether a patent is obvious."[3] [3] Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980; 49 IPR 225 at 241 [70].…
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Co Ltd [2000] FCA 316
Citation 6

…and in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co Ltd [111] the Federal Court said: [111] [2000] FCA 316; 46 IPR 553. "if, on the basis of what was known, as revealed on the face of the specification, the invention was obvious or did not involve an inventive step – that is, would be obvious to the hypothetical no…
NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 15
Citation 7

…apparent on the face of the specification. In NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd [109] the High Court said: [109] [1995] HCA 15; 183 CLR 655. "if it is apparent upon the face of the specification, when properly construed, that the quality of inventiveness necessary for there to be…
Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12
Citation 8 (Para 15)

…ken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not." [64] [1981] HCA 12; 148 CLR 262 at 286 [45].…
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9
Citation 9 (Para 18)

…be treated as being used by an individual as a general body of knowledge."[68] [68] Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9; 144 CLR 253 at 292 [115].…
Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd [1977] HCA 19
Citation 10 (Para 3)

…gement and generally one can properly ask oneself whether the alleged anticipation would, if the patent were valid, constitute an infringement". [56] [1977] HCA 19; 137 CLR 228 at 235 [20].…
Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…n that the fermentation is carried out by the defined yeast. Consequently the same construction would be reached. [55] Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1; 130 CLR 461 at 479 3 Novelty…
Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd [1959] HCA 71
Citation 12

…133. Another formulation of the requirement is found in Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd :[113] [113] (1959) 102 CLR 232. "We have in truth nothing but a claim for the use of a known material in the manufacture of known articles for the purpose of which its known properties make that material suitable. A claim…
Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48
Citation 13 (Para 23)

…IPR 56 at 95. [50] Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980; 49 IPR 225 at 236 [47]. [51] Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48; 92 CLR 17 at 97; cited in Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 23 at 33.…
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2013] FCA 368
Citation 14 (Para 19)

…the particular art; in other words, when it becomes part of their common stock of knowledge relating to the art. "[69] [69] Ranbaxy v AstraZeneca [2013] FCA 368; (2013) 101 IPR 11 at 51 [217]. 4.1 The problem…
Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Apotex Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 214
Citation 15 (Para 8)

…of the prevailing common general knowledge and state of the relevant art at the priority date."[1] [1] Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Apotex Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 214; 100 IPR 451 at 482 [139]. 2.2 The field of the invention…
Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 628
Citation 16 (Para 19)

…of Luxmoore J in British Acoustic Films (1936) 53 RPC 221 at 250, cited by Lehane J in Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 593; [1999] FCA 628 at 605 [39]: In my judgment it is not sufficient to prove common general knowledge that a particular disclosure is made in an article, or series of arti…
Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd [1997] FCA 1092
Citation 17 (Para 23)

…[48] Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 567; (1991) 32 FCR 491 at 512. [49] Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd [1997] FCA 1092; 39 IPR 56 at 95. [50] Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980; 49 IPR 225 at 236 [47]. [51] Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [19…
Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 449
Citation 18 (Para 23)

…td [2000] FCA 980; 49 IPR 225 at 236 [47]. [51] Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48; 92 CLR 17 at 97; cited in Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 23 at 33.…
Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 556
Citation 19 (Para 23)

…on.[51] [47] Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 at 585. [48] Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 567; (1991) 32 FCR 491 at 512. [49] Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd [1997] FCA 1092; 39 IPR 56 at 95. [50] Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty…
D & G Mazzone & Sons Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd [1991] FCA 567
Citation 20 (Para 23)

…the specification.[51] [47] Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 at 585. [48] Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 567; (1991) 32 FCR 491 at 512. [49] Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd [1997] FCA 1092; 39 IPR 56 at 95. [50] Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Contr…
Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co [1990] FCA 40
Citation 21 (Para 4)

…be clearly shown to have planted his flag at the precise destination before the patentee." [57] See Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 91 ALR 513 at 517 [58] [1972] RPC 457 at 485 – 486.…
Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 232
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…imed, so that the alleged invention as claimed is broadly, that is to say in a general sense, described in the body of the specification".[124] [124] Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 at 95.…

AI Chat coming soon