Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 37

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 37

Claims 1 and 9 of the patent application lack novelty because they are anticipated by the Bennett Patent, properly construed, which discloses all the essential features either expressly or within its general teaching, including two-phase bonus prize awarding and triggering by a predetermined objective (encompassing both a winning combination and mystery quantum equalisation triggers). Other challenged claims fall with or are likewise anticipated for similar reasons. Obviousness is not established to the requisite standard on the common general knowledge and Megabucks System alone, without the Bennett Patent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Opposition to Grant of Patent; Appeal From Delegate of Commissioner of Patents / Appeal (original Jurisdiction) From Opposition Decision
Outcome
Claims 1 and 9 (and dependent claims) are anticipated and thus invalid; Applicant to bring in short minutes to reflect these reasons; orders as to settlement and entry to be dealt with further.
Legal Topics
['patent Opposition' 'novelty (anticipation)' 'obviousness' 'patent Claim Construction']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['patent Opposition' 'novelty (anticipation)' 'obviousness' 'patent Claim Construction']

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

Opposition to Grant of Patent; Appeal From Delegate of Commissioner of Patents / Appeal (original Jurisdiction) From Opposition Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether patent claims lack novelty (are anticipated)' 'Whether patent claims are obvious' 'Proper construction of claims in the patent application' 'Interpretation of prior art (Bennett Patent, Megabucks System)']

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 9 of the patent application lack novelty because they are anticipated by the Bennett Patent, properly construed, which discloses all the essential features either expressly or within its general teaching, including two-phase bonus prize awarding and triggering by a predetermined objective (encompassing both a winning combination and mystery quantum equalisation triggers). Other challenged claims fall with or are likewise anticipated for similar reasons. Obviousness is not established to the requisite standard on the common general knowledge and Megabucks System alone, without the Bennett Patent.

Court Disposition

Claims 1 and 9 (and dependent claims) are anticipated and thus invalid; Applicant to bring in short minutes to reflect these reasons; orders as to settlement and entry to be dealt with further.

Orders

  • ['Applicant to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons.' 'Other orders as may be agreed or determined after further hearing.']