Multigate Medical Devices Pty Ltd v B Braun Melsungen AG [2016] FCAFC 21

Multigate Medical Devices Pty Ltd v B Braun Melsungen AG [2016] FCAFC 21

The Full Court held that the primary judge erred only in construing the phrase "spaced apart relationship" in claim 1 of the 327 Patent. Properly construed, the phrase required spatial separation, and Multigate's catheters A, B and C did not satisfy that integer, so they did not infringe the 327 Patent. The other construction challenges failed, the findings of infringement of claims 1 to 6 of the 577 Patent stood, and the invalidity appeal failed because the relevant claims were fairly based on the ancestor disclosures, internally fairly based, and not anticipated by the Kuracina patent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Appeals Concerning Safety Intravenous Catheter Patents / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeals From B Braun Melsungen AG V Multigate Medical Devices Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1110
Outcome
Leave to appeal in VID 681 of 2014 granted; appeal allowed in part. Appeal in VID 693 of 2014 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['patent Claim Construction' 'patent Infringement' 'external Fair Basis and Priority Dates' 'internal Fair Basis' 'novelty' 'safety Intravenous Catheters']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['patent Claim Construction' 'patent Infringement' 'external Fair Basis and Priority Dates' 'internal Fair Basis' 'novelty' 'safety Intravenous Catheters']

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

Patent Infringement and Validity Appeals Concerning Safety Intravenous Catheter Patents / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeals From B Braun Melsungen AG V Multigate Medical Devices Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1110

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in construing claim integers in Australian Patent Number 2012258327 and Australian Patent Number 2012260577.' "Whether Multigate's catheters A, B and C infringed claim 1 of the 327 Patent and claims 1 to 6 of the 577 Patent." 'Whether the patents in suit were entitled to priority dates through a chain of ancestor patent applications on the basis of external fair basis.' 'Whether the relevant claims lacked internal fair basis under s 40(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).' 'Whether claim 1 of the 327 Patent lacked novelty by reason of the Kuracina patent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court held that the primary judge erred only in construing the phrase "spaced apart relationship" in claim 1 of the 327 Patent. Properly construed, the phrase required spatial separation, and Multigate's catheters A, B and C did not satisfy that integer, so they did not infringe the 327 Patent. The other construction challenges failed, the findings of infringement of claims 1 to 6 of the 577 Patent stood, and the invalidity appeal failed because the relevant claims were fairly based on the ancestor disclosures, internally fairly based, and not anticipated by the Kuracina patent.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal in VID 681 of 2014 granted; appeal allowed in part. Appeal in VID 693 of 2014 dismissed.

Orders

  • ["In proceeding VID 681 of 2014, leave to appeal be granted and the appellant's appeal be allowed in part." "The parties file and serve within 7 days of the date hereof minutes of orders and short submissions (limited to two pages, if necessary) as to any setting aside of or variation to the primary judge's orders...