Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 187

Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 187

The application failed due to absence from the petty patent application of the best method known to the applicant and lack of inventive step. Other complaints, including full description, clarity, fair basis, priority date, manner of manufacture, and novelty, were rejected as lacking merit or not substantiated by evidence or construction of relevant documents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Original Action and Cross Claims / Post Trial Judgment and Orders
Legal Topics
['patents' 'petty Patent Application' 'inventive Step' 'obviousness' 'best Known Method' 'novelty' 'priority Date' 'specification Clarity' 'statutory Construction']
['intellectual Property'] ['patents' 'petty Patent Application' 'inventive Step' 'obviousness' 'best Known Method' 'novelty' 'priority Date' 'specification Clarity' 'statutory 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

Original Action and Cross Claims / Post Trial Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the petty patent application disclosed the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention' 'Whether the invention involved an inventive step' 'Whether the invention was fully described in the patent application' 'Whether the application was clear and succinct' 'Whether the patent claims were fairly based on the described matter' 'Whether the priority date was correct' 'Whether the alleged invention was a manner of manufacture under s 18 of the Act and s 6 Statute of Monopolies' 'Whether the claimed invention lacked novelty']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed due to absence from the petty patent application of the best method known to the applicant and lack of inventive step. Other complaints, including full description, clarity, fair basis, priority date, manner of manufacture, and novelty, were rejected as lacking merit or not substantiated by evidence or construction of relevant documents.

Court Disposition

Orders

  • []