VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd

The case of VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a patent. VIP alleged that BMW manufactured and sold dip tubes that infringed VIP's patent. The patent in question related to a variable-length dip tube for a fluid transfer container. BMW did not dispute that it manufactured and sold the dip tubes, but argued that they did not infringe the patent. The court was required to determine the meaning of specific terms in the patent, such as 'lower end portion', 'loose clearance fit', and 'just below'. The court concluded that BMW's product had all the essential features of the patent claims and therefore infringed the patent.

The court also examined BMW's cross-claim that the patent was invalid. BMW argued that the patent lacked novelty and was obvious to a non-inventive worker in the field. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the patent was not anticipated by prior art and that it did involve an inventive step. The court also dismissed BMW's argument that the patent was a manner of manufacture and lacked clarity and definition. The court found that the patent was clear when construed by reference to the specifications.

The court also considered objections to the admissibility of expert evidence. BMW objected to the admissibility of evidence from VIP's expert witness, Mr McFadyen, on various grounds. The court rejected these objections and found that Mr McFadyen's evidence was admissible and should be given weight. The court accepted Mr McFadyen's explanation of the patent claims and found that BMW's product infringed the patent.

The court made orders for the parties to file and serve minutes of proposed orders and for BMW to respond if it disagreed with any of VIP's proposed orders. The court found in favour of VIP and ordered that BMW had infringed VIP's patent and that the patent was valid. The court awarded damages and an account of profits to VIP.