Speedy Gantry Hire Pty Ltd v Preston Erection Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 542

Speedy Gantry Hire Pty Ltd v Preston Erection Pty Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 542

The amendments in the Schedule were appropriate because they reflected concessions made at trial, brought the claims into consistent language, were not precluded by section 102 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and were not opposed by the respondents or the Commissioner of Patents. Because the advertised opposition period had not expired, the amendment order should be suspended until 29 May 1998 and further advertisement should be dispensed with except to the extent of the advertisement on 23 April 1998. The Court also made consequential final relief, including an injunction against the first respondent, costs, dismissal of the application against the second respondent and dismissal of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Patent Proceedings Concerning Validity, Amendment and Infringement / Further Relief After Reasons for Judgment, Including Amendment of Patent, Injunction, Costs, Leave to Appeal and Stay Issues
Outcome
Patent amendment ordered, injunction granted against the first respondent, application dismissed against the second respondent, cross-claim otherwise dismissed, respondents' notice of motion dismissed, leave to appeal granted, and specified orders stayed pending appeal.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Patent Specification' 'patent Infringement Injunction' 'validity of Patent Claims' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Patent Specification' 'patent Infringement Injunction' 'validity of Patent Claims' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Patent Proceedings Concerning Validity, Amendment and Infringement / Further Relief After Reasons for Judgment, Including Amendment of Patent, Injunction, Costs, Leave to Appeal and Stay Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should order amendment of the Patent under section 105 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).' 'Whether further advertisement of amendments should be dispensed with.' 'Whether the amendment order should be suspended pending expiry of the time for opposition to the advertised amendments.' 'Whether a final injunction and related relief should be ordered against Preston Erection Pty Limited.' 'Whether leave to appeal and any stay should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments in the Schedule were appropriate because they reflected concessions made at trial, brought the claims into consistent language, were not precluded by section 102 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and were not opposed by the respondents or the Commissioner of Patents. Because the advertised opposition period had not expired, the amendment order should be suspended until 29 May 1998 and further advertisement should be dispensed with except to the extent of the advertisement on 23 April 1998. The Court also made consequential final relief, including an injunction against the first respondent, costs, dismissal of the application against the second respondent and dismissal of the...

Court Disposition

Patent amendment ordered, injunction granted against the first respondent, application dismissed against the second respondent, cross-claim otherwise dismissed, respondents' notice of motion dismissed, leave to appeal granted, and specified orders stayed pending appeal.

Orders

  • ['Australian Patent No. 578,175 be amended as set out in the marked-up schedule which is exhibit 21A.' 'Further advertisement of the amendments be dispensed with.' 'The operation of Order 1 be suspended until 29 May 1998.' 'If any person has by 21 May 1998 given notice of intention to oppose the amendment to the...