Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 162

Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 162

Claim 1 was not limited to a method in which the surface timer and downhole timer each noted and counted from the same initial reference time. Step 2 required the downhole recorded time intervals to be referable to an initial reference time; step 3 did not require the inputted surface time to be referable to that same time, and "beyond" meant no more than after or later than. The later step 5 broadly required relating the inputted specific time to the recorded time intervals. The preferred embodiment involving synchronisation or counting forwards could not be imported into the claim. On that construction, the Orifinder v5 infringed, and the clarity and fair basis challenges failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Patent Infringement and Validity Proceeding / Appeal From Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd V Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1839; Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal; Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to amend the notice of appeal dismissed; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['patent Construction' 'patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'clarity' 'fair Basis' 'core Sample Orientation' 'method Claims' 'system Claims']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['patent Construction' 'patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'clarity' 'fair Basis' 'core Sample Orientation' 'method Claims' 'system Claims']

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 in Patent Infringement and Validity Proceeding / Appeal From Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd V Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1839; Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in construing claim 1 of Australian Standard Patent No. 2010200162 as not requiring both the downhole timer and the surface timer to count with reference to the same initial reference time.' 'Whether, on the proper construction of claim 1, the Orifinder v5 infringed the claims in suit.' 'Whether the word "beyond" in step 3 of claim 1 meant no more than "after" or "later than".' 'Whether the claims were clear for the purposes of s 40(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) as in force at the relevant time.' 'Whether the claims were fairly based on the matter described in the specification.']

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 was not limited to a method in which the surface timer and downhole timer each noted and counted from the same initial reference time. Step 2 required the downhole recorded time intervals to be referable to an initial reference time; step 3 did not require the inputted surface time to be referable to that same time, and "beyond" meant no more than after or later than. The later step 5 broadly required relating the inputted specific time to the recorded time intervals. The preferred embodiment involving synchronisation or counting forwards could not be imported into the claim. On that construction, the Orifinder v5 infringed, and the clarity and fair basis challenges failed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend the notice of appeal dismissed; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The appellants' application for leave to amend their notice of appeal be dismissed." 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal (including the costs of the appellants' interlocutory application for leave to appeal (and an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal)...