Damorgold Pty Ltd v Blindware Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1552

Damorgold Pty Ltd v Blindware Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1552

The meaning of 'responsive to' in claim integers requires an interaction or causal relationship between the blind cylinder and the biasing means, not merely actions occurring in parallel as passive responses to a third element; the Blindware Products did not satisfy this requirement and thus did not infringe. Prior art (Uniline Product, US 269, JP 694) did not anticipate the claims as essential features were missing or not disclosed in the required manner. The claimed invention involved an inventive step not obvious in light of the common general knowledge or s 7(3) information. Neither party established misleading or deceptive conduct, nor did the warnings and correspondence sent amount...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (intellectual Property) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application and Cross-Claim dismissed. No infringement found. Patent found to be valid. No misleading or deceptive conduct. No unjustified threats. Orders for parties to confer and file written submissions on further orders, including costs.
Legal Topics
['patents' 'patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'novelty' 'inventive Step' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unjustified Threats']
['intellectual Property' 'consumer Law'] ['patents' 'patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'novelty' 'inventive Step' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unjustified Threats']

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

Civil (intellectual Property) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Blindware Products infringe claims 1-25 of Patent No. 760547 by Damorgold under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)' 'Whether Patent No. 760547 is invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step' 'Whether either party engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian Consumer Law' 'Whether Damorgold made unjustified threats of infringement proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The meaning of 'responsive to' in claim integers requires an interaction or causal relationship between the blind cylinder and the biasing means, not merely actions occurring in parallel as passive responses to a third element; the Blindware Products did not satisfy this requirement and thus did not infringe. Prior art (Uniline Product, US 269, JP 694) did not anticipate the claims as essential features were missing or not disclosed in the required manner. The claimed invention involved an inventive step not obvious in light of the common general knowledge or s 7(3) information. Neither party established misleading or deceptive conduct, nor did the warnings and correspondence sent amount...

Court Disposition

Application and Cross-Claim dismissed. No infringement found. Patent found to be valid. No misleading or deceptive conduct. No unjustified threats. Orders for parties to confer and file written submissions on further orders, including costs.

Orders

  • ['Parties to confer, and by 4:00pm on 2 February 2018 file and serve any joint written submissions on orders to be made (including costs), or failing agreement, separate written submissions.']