Insta Image Pty Ltd v KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 139

Insta Image Pty Ltd v KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 139

The 'Original' canopy was made publicly available prior to the priority date, thereby depriving all claims except claim 14 of novelty under s 7(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). As to claim 14, the invention as claimed was not obvious because, although some discrete technologies were part of common general knowledge, their specific combination was not, and it would not have been routine for a person skilled in the art to arrive at the invention as claimed. The appeal was allowed to the extent specified in the orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['obviousness' 'novelty' 'construction of Patent Claims' 'prior Art' 'publicly Available Disclosure']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['obviousness' 'novelty' 'construction of Patent Claims' 'prior Art' 'publicly Available Disclosure']

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

Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claimed invention was obvious having regard to the common general knowledge in Australia prior to the priority date.' 'Whether the claimed invention was novel given alleged prior public use at events and disclosure to third parties.' "The construction of 'the invention, so far as claimed in any claim' under s 18(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The 'Original' canopy was made publicly available prior to the priority date, thereby depriving all claims except claim 14 of novelty under s 7(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). As to claim 14, the invention as claimed was not obvious because, although some discrete technologies were part of common general knowledge, their specific combination was not, and it would not have been routine for a person skilled in the art to arrive at the invention as claimed. The appeal was allowed to the extent specified in the orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The orders made on 3 and 24 April 2007 in proceeding QUD 18 of 2004 be set aside, except order 7 of 24 April 2007.' 'Australian Patent No 656757 be revoked in relation to claims 1, 2, 8-13 and 15-23.' 'The parties provide written submissions as to appropriate orders regarding infringement...