Neurizon Pty Ltd v Jupiters Limited [2005] FCA 1177

Neurizon Pty Ltd v Jupiters Limited [2005] FCA 1177

The amendments to the patent claims should be allowed as they are prompted by the Full Court's construction and do not unfairly prejudice the respondents; lack of inventive step has not been established as the evidence relied upon by the respondents does not show that the solution would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. The cross-claim for revocation is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Cross Claim for Revocation / Reconsideration After Full Court Remitter; Application for Patent Amendment
Outcome
Patent amendment allowed; cross-claim for revocation dismissed
Legal Topics
['patent Amendment' 'inventive Step' 'patent Revocation' 'patent Infringement']
['intellectual Property'] ['patent Amendment' 'inventive Step' 'patent Revocation' 'patent Infringement']

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 and Cross Claim for Revocation / Reconsideration After Full Court Remitter; Application for Patent Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether amendment to patent specification should be permitted under s 105 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)' 'Whether the invention lacks inventive step for the purpose of revocation']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to the patent claims should be allowed as they are prompted by the Full Court's construction and do not unfairly prejudice the respondents; lack of inventive step has not been established as the evidence relied upon by the respondents does not show that the solution would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. The cross-claim for revocation is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Patent amendment allowed; cross-claim for revocation dismissed

Orders

  • ["The Commissioner of Patents is directed to amend Australian Patent Number 714299 in accordance with the marked-up version marked 'A' attached to the Notice of Motion filed 4 July 2005." "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion." 'The cross-claim for revocation of Patent No 714299 is dismissed.'...