Davies v Lazer Safe Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 65

Davies v Lazer Safe Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 65

Integer (1.5) did not require comparison with stored images or shadow maps; it required the processing and control means to receive image information and detect the presence of shadowed regions. However, integer (1.6) required sufficient image information to determine the boundaries of the shadowed region, meaning a realistically substantial portion or part of the shadowed region sufficient to determine its outline or shape. The Lazer Safe Systems in guarding mode only divided the image into segments and acted on binary obstructed or unobstructed segment values, including where one segment was deemed obstructed, and did not determine the boundaries of shadowed regions. Because claim 1 was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Appeal and Contingent Cross Appeal Concerning Validity / Appeal From Davies V Lazer Safe Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 702 Before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
The appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['construction of Patent Claims' 'patent Infringement' 'non Infringement' 'patent Validity Cross Appeal' 'safety System for Machinery']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['construction of Patent Claims' 'patent Infringement' 'non Infringement' 'patent Validity Cross Appeal' 'safety System for Machinery']

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 Infringement Appeal and Contingent Cross Appeal Concerning Validity / Appeal From Davies V Lazer Safe Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 702 Before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in construing integers (1.5) and (1.6) of claim 1 of Australian Patent No 2003229135.' 'Whether the impugned Lazer Safe Systems infringed claim 1 or dependent claims of the Patent.' 'Whether the cross-appeal alleging invalidity should be considered if non-infringement was upheld.']

Ratio Decidendi

Integer (1.5) did not require comparison with stored images or shadow maps; it required the processing and control means to receive image information and detect the presence of shadowed regions. However, integer (1.6) required sufficient image information to determine the boundaries of the shadowed region, meaning a realistically substantial portion or part of the shadowed region sufficient to determine its outline or shape. The Lazer Safe Systems in guarding mode only divided the image into segments and acted on binary obstructed or unobstructed segment values, including where one segment was deemed obstructed, and did not determine the boundaries of shadowed regions. Because claim 1 was...

Court Disposition

The appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal and the cross-appeal be dismissed.' 'Within 14 days, the parties are to file and serve any written submissions they wish to make on the question of costs, of no more than 3 pages.' 'Any submissions in answer, of no more than 3 pages, should be filed and served within a further 14 days.']