Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Konami Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 735

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Konami Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 735

Aristocrat established Konami infringed the relevant claims of the 689 patent, which were held valid as they were fairly based, novel, involved an inventive step, and constituted a manner of manufacture. Claims 1, 11, and 12 of the 341 patent and claims 1, 19, and 56 of the 847 patent were invalid for lack of novelty and/or inventive step, as they failed to meet the statutory requirements under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

Parties
Applicant / Cross Respondent: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited; Respondent / Cross Claimant: Konami Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Aristocrat entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief for infringement of the 689 patent; claims of the 341 and 847 patents revoked as invalid.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Fair Basis, Manner of Manufacture, Priority Date, Construction of Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Fair Basis Manner of Manufacture +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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Konami Australia Pty Limited

Respondent / Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Konami infringed selected claims of Aristocrat's patents 689, 341, and 847
  2. 2 Whether relevant patent claims are valid under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) for fair basis, novelty, inventive step (obviousness), manner of manufacture, and proper priority dates

Ratio Decidendi

Aristocrat established Konami infringed the relevant claims of the 689 patent, which were held valid as they were fairly based, novel, involved an inventive step, and constituted a manner of manufacture. Claims 1, 11, and 12 of the 341 patent and claims 1, 19, and 56 of the 847 patent were invalid for lack of novelty and/or inventive step, as they failed to meet the statutory requirements under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Aristocrat entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief for infringement of the 689 patent; claims of the 341 and 847 patents revoked as invalid.

Orders

  • Within 7 days the applicant file and serve a draft minute of the orders it seeks in light of the reasons for judgment.
  • The proceeding be stood over to a date to be fixed for the making of further orders.