Allied Pumps Pty Ltd v LAA Industries Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1457

Allied Pumps Pty Ltd v LAA Industries Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1457

The patent is invalid for want of novelty as it was anticipated by prior public acts (specifically, supply, commissioning, and use of VSG systems by Roy Hill in 2016, which were capable of and used for level-based control, without confidentiality or restriction). These acts disclosed all essential claim features to the skilled addressee, and the reasonable trial/public working exclusion did not apply as the purpose was Roy Hill's commercial evaluation and UON had already tested and marketed the invention. Additionally, various prior art documents (Torrey, Boot in combination with Elizondo, and Komatsu) also anticipated all claims. If not anticipated, the claims were invalid for secret use...

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Allied Pumps Pty Ltd; Respondent/first Cross Claimant: LAA Industries Pty Ltd; Second Cross Claimant/excl. Licensee: UON Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Patents / Post Trial First Instance Judgment Final Decision on Liability and Invalidity (federal Court of Australia)
Outcome
Patent held invalid for want of novelty; cross-claim for infringement dismissed; directions for parties to confer on redactions and final orders.
Legal Topics
Innovation Patent, Claim Construction, Novelty/anticipation, Infringement, Patent Priority Date, Secret Use, Standard of Proof, Admissions From Pleadings
Intellectual Property Patents Innovation Patent Claim Construction Novelty/anticipation Infringement Patent Priority Date Secret Use +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allied Pumps Pty Ltd

Applicant/cross Respondent

LAA Industries Pty Ltd

Respondent/first Cross Claimant

UON Pty Ltd

Second Cross Claimant/excl. Licensee

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Patents / Post Trial First Instance Judgment Final Decision on Liability and Invalidity (federal Court of Australia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the asserted Australian innovation patent is novel over the prior art base and prior public use, including prior acts of the patentee and documentary disclosures (s 18(1A)(b), s 7, s 24 Patents Act 1990 (Cth); reg 2.2B Patents Regulations 1991)
  2. 2 Whether there was secret use precluding patentability (s 18(1A)(d) Patents Act 1990 (Cth))
  3. 3 Whether the invention involved an innovative step (s 18(1A)(b)(ii))

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for want of novelty as it was anticipated by prior public acts (specifically, supply, commissioning, and use of VSG systems by Roy Hill in 2016, which were capable of and used for level-based control, without confidentiality or restriction). These acts disclosed all essential claim features to the skilled addressee, and the reasonable trial/public working exclusion did not apply as the purpose was Roy Hill's commercial evaluation and UON had already tested and marketed the invention. Additionally, various prior art documents (Torrey, Boot in combination with Elizondo, and Komatsu) also anticipated all claims. If not anticipated, the claims were invalid for secret use...

Court Disposition

Patent held invalid for want of novelty; cross-claim for infringement dismissed; directions for parties to confer on redactions and final orders.

Orders

  • Patent claims 1–4 declared invalid for lack of novelty.
  • Cross-claim alleging infringement dismissed.