Dynamite Games Pty Limited v Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Limited [2013] FCAFC 96

Dynamite Games Pty Limited v Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Limited [2013] FCAFC 96

The primary judge did not apply an erroneous 'obvious to try' test. Read in context, his reasons recognised that in the field of gaming machines, once a gameplay feature was selected, implementation by known hardware and software was not in issue, so the Alphapharm expectation of a useful result was effectively assumed in Dynamite's favour. The primary judge considered the claimed combinations and was entitled to find, on the evidence concerning the Standard and known games including Money Back, Cashcade, Scatter Rug, Two-up and Dolphin Treasure, that the features of both patents were matters of common general knowledge, including in combination, before the priority date. The standard...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Validity and Infringement of a Standard Patent and an Innovation Patent Relating to Electronic Gaming Machines / Appeal From Dynamite Games Pty Limited V Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Limited [2013] FCA 163
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['validity of Standard Patent' 'validity of Innovation Patent' 'inventive Step' 'innovative Step' 'obviousness' 'cripps Question' 'common General Knowledge' 'patent Infringement' 'electronic Gaming Machines']
['patents' 'intellectual Property'] ['validity of Standard Patent' 'validity of Innovation Patent' 'inventive Step' 'innovative Step' 'obviousness' 'cripps Question' 'common General Knowledge' 'patent Infringement' 'electronic Gaming Machines']

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 Concerning Validity and Infringement of a Standard Patent and an Innovation Patent Relating to Electronic Gaming Machines / Appeal From Dynamite Games Pty Limited V Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Limited [2013] FCA 163

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the claims of the standard patent lacked an inventive step.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the claims of the innovation patent lacked an innovative step.' "Whether the primary judge applied an impermissible 'obvious to try' test contrary to Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Limited." 'Whether the primary judge failed to consider the combination of features in each claim or made findings about common general knowledge unsupported by evidence.' 'Whether, if the patents were valid, the impugned products infringed the asserted claims.']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge did not apply an erroneous 'obvious to try' test. Read in context, his reasons recognised that in the field of gaming machines, once a gameplay feature was selected, implementation by known hardware and software was not in issue, so the Alphapharm expectation of a useful result was effectively assumed in Dynamite's favour. The primary judge considered the claimed combinations and was entitled to find, on the evidence concerning the Standard and known games including Money Back, Cashcade, Scatter Rug, Two-up and Dolphin Treasure, that the features of both patents were matters of common general knowledge, including in combination, before the priority date. The standard...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed."]