IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Ltd [2008] FCAFC 131

IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Ltd [2008] FCAFC 131

The proper construction of the patent application claims limits them to count triggers, not combination triggers. The Bennett patent, although its claims are broad enough to encompass both triggers, in its disclosure only specifically addresses a combination trigger. Thus, the Bennett patent does not anticipate the relevant claims since it does not contain a clear and unmistakable direction to use a count trigger, nor does it disclose each integer of the claims in suit. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed as the opposition is not made out with the requisite certainty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['patents' 'novelty' 'obviousness' 'patent Claim Construction' 'anticipation' 'appeals']
['intellectual Property Law'] ['patents' 'novelty' 'obviousness' 'patent Claim Construction' 'anticipation' 'appeals']

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 / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether certain claims of the patent application lacked novelty over the Bennett patent' 'Proper construction of the patent application and the Bennett patent' 'Whether the Bennett patent disclosed the relevant integer(s) required to anticipate the claims in suit']

Ratio Decidendi

The proper construction of the patent application claims limits them to count triggers, not combination triggers. The Bennett patent, although its claims are broad enough to encompass both triggers, in its disclosure only specifically addresses a combination trigger. Thus, the Bennett patent does not anticipate the relevant claims since it does not contain a clear and unmistakable direction to use a count trigger, nor does it disclose each integer of the claims in suit. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed as the opposition is not made out with the requisite certainty.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Orders 1 to 6 made by Allsop J on 9 October 2007 be set aside.' 'The appellants make any request to the Commissioner of Patents for leave to amend the specification of Australian Patent Application No 748263 pursuant to s 104 of the Act, within 60 days of these orders.' 'No order as to...