Synthetic Turf Development Pty Limited v Sports Technology International Pty Limited

Synthetic Turf Development Pty Limited brought proceedings against Sports Technology International Pty Limited, seeking a declaration that claims 1 to 10 of patent No 664427 were valid and not anticipated or obvious. The respondent cross-claimed for revocation of the patent. The court was required to decide whether the patent claims were novel and involved an inventive step, as well as whether the cross-claim for revocation should be upheld.

The court examined the evidence provided by the parties, including the testimony of Mr Williams and Mr Ellice. Mr Williams' evidence regarding the difference in level instructions was accepted by the court. Mr Ellice's evidence corroborated Mr Williams' testimony about the multi-directional rolling technique used in the installation method. However, the court found that Mr Ellice's evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that cold multi-directional rolling did not induce a crimp or ameliorate directional bias. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish with sufficient specificity that the technique was ineffective.

The court dismissed the application and revoked claims 1-8 and 10 of the patent on the ground that they were not novel and did not involve an inventive step. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the application and the cross-claim.