Multisteps Pty Ltd v Specialty Packaging Aust Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 587

Multisteps Pty Ltd v Specialty Packaging Aust Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 587

The patents are valid, as prior art did not disclose all essential features and the claimed variations made a substantial contribution to the working of the invention. The designs are valid, as they were not substantially similar in overall impression to prior art. Specialty Packaging Aust Pty Ltd infringed the patents by supplying containers embodying all essential claim integers, and infringed the designs by supplying containers substantially similar in overall impression. Neil Alexander Ainslie authorised and thus also infringed by reason of sufficient control over supply and management.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Infringement and Validity Proceeding / Judgment Following Full Hearing
Outcome
Applicant's claims proven; patents and designs found valid and infringed
Legal Topics
['patent Validity' 'patent Infringement' 'designs Validity' 'designs Infringement' 'innovative Step' 'novelty' 'distinctiveness' 'authorisation of Infringement']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'designs'] ['patent Validity' 'patent Infringement' 'designs Validity' 'designs Infringement' 'innovative Step' 'novelty' 'distinctiveness' 'authorisation of Infringement']

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

Intellectual Property Infringement and Validity Proceeding / Judgment Following Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the disputed patents are valid (novelty and innovative step)' 'Whether the disputed designs are valid (distinctiveness)' 'Whether respondents infringed the patents and designs' 'Whether the second respondent authorised infringement']

Ratio Decidendi

The patents are valid, as prior art did not disclose all essential features and the claimed variations made a substantial contribution to the working of the invention. The designs are valid, as they were not substantially similar in overall impression to prior art. Specialty Packaging Aust Pty Ltd infringed the patents by supplying containers embodying all essential claim integers, and infringed the designs by supplying containers substantially similar in overall impression. Neil Alexander Ainslie authorised and thus also infringed by reason of sufficient control over supply and management.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claims proven; patents and designs found valid and infringed

Orders

  • ['Parties to confer and within 14 days file agreed or competing proposed orders for relief to applicant consistent with reasons, including timetable for pecuniary relief and costs.']