Termite Tite (NZ) No 2 Limited v Term-Seal (Aust) Pty Limited

The case of Termite Tite (NZ) No 2 Limited v Term-Seal (Aust) Pty Limited involved a dispute over patent infringement in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants, Termite Tite (NZ) No 2 Limited and York Nominees Pty Ltd, sought to enforce a patent against Term-Seal (Aust) Pty Limited and its directors, Mr Philip Hannay and Mr Roger Franklin, for alleged infringement of the patent. The respondents, Term-Seal (Aust) Pty Limited and its directors, counterclaimed that the patent was invalid and not infringed. The central issue before the court was whether the respondents had infringed the patent and whether the patent was valid.

The court was required to determine if the respondents had indeed infringed the patent claims, specifically claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9, which were alleged to be infringed by the Term-Seal FRM system. The court also needed to address the respondents' counterclaim that the patent was invalid and not infringed. The validity of the patent and its claims was scrutinized based on the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. The court assessed the technical details of the patent and the Term-Seal FRM system, including expert opinions on the utility and distinctiveness of the patented invention.

The court concluded that the respondents had infringed claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 of the patent. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the detailed comparison between the patent claims and the Term-Seal FRM system, which demonstrated that the latter incorporated the patented invention. The court dismissed the respondents' cross-claim regarding the invalidity of the patent, finding that the applicants had successfully demonstrated the usefulness and distinctiveness of the patented invention. The court accepted expert evidence supporting the utility and advantages of the patented termite barrier system.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the respondents' cross-claim be dismissed and directed the parties to discuss the appropriate orders to address the infringement. The court's decision upheld the validity of the patent and established that the respondents had indeed infringed the patent claims.