VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 593

VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 593

Provision of a report by the Commissioner after re-examination would not reduce the cost or expedite determination of the proceeding; the report is advisory and not binding, and evidence on novelty and inventive step will still need to be adduced before the Court; the anticipated trial is not lengthy or complex.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd; Respondent/cross Claimant: B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Re Examination of Patent Specification
Outcome
Application for direction under s 97(3) Patents Act dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step, Re Examination Procedures
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Novelty Inventive Step Re Examination Procedures

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd

Applicant/cross Respondent

B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd

Respondent/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Re Examination of Patent Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a direction should be given to the Commissioner under s 97(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to re-examine the patent in suit
  2. 2 Whether Commissioner's report under s 100 of the Act will reduce cost of proceeding and expedite its determination

Ratio Decidendi

Provision of a report by the Commissioner after re-examination would not reduce the cost or expedite determination of the proceeding; the report is advisory and not binding, and evidence on novelty and inventive step will still need to be adduced before the Court; the anticipated trial is not lengthy or complex.

Court Disposition

Application for direction under s 97(3) Patents Act dismissed

Orders

  • The motion, notice of which was originally dated 8 May 2009, be dismissed.
  • The respondent/cross-claimant pay the costs of the motion of the applicant/cross-respondent.