Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 90

Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 90

The Cougar system infringed because, although designed to capture wager information closely associated with individual games, its methodology was not game-based: it calculated the difference between successive turnover meter responses and made the probability of winning dependent on at least some of the amount wagered during that elapsed period. The claims were fairly based because the specification disclosed the elapsed-period integer and did not require the period to be longer than a game cycle. Hyperlink did not anticipate because it was event or game-based, not time-based. ActivData II+ would have fallen within claim 1 on the Court's construction, but Jupiters failed to prove an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation Proceeding / Full Court Appeals From Judgments and Orders of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
The first appeal was upheld in part, limited to setting aside dismissal of the revocation cross-claim and remitting the lack of inventive step ground; otherwise the first appeal was dismissed. The second appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['patent Infringement' 'patent Construction' 'fair Basis' 'novelty' 'prior Use' 'enabling Public Disclosure' 'inventive Step' 'issue Estoppel' 'electronic Gaming Machines' 'prize Awarding Systems']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['patent Infringement' 'patent Construction' 'fair Basis' 'novelty' 'prior Use' 'enabling Public Disclosure' 'inventive Step' 'issue Estoppel' 'electronic Gaming Machines' 'prize Awarding Systems']

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 Revocation Proceeding / Full Court Appeals From Judgments and Orders of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Cougar prize awarding system infringed claims of Neurizon's patent by using the claimed integer of probability dependent on an amount wagered during an elapsed period." 'Whether the patent claims were too wide to be fairly based on the specification, particularly as to the expression "an elapsed period".' 'Whether the Hyperlink system anticipated the patent for want of novelty.' "Whether Jupiters' ActivData II+ system anticipated the patent by prior use and whether there had been an enabling public disclosure." 'Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the revocation ground of lack of inventive step.' 'Whether infringement of the modified Cougar system was precluded by issue estoppel arising from the first decision.' 'Whether the modified Cougar system infringed the patent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Cougar system infringed because, although designed to capture wager information closely associated with individual games, its methodology was not game-based: it calculated the difference between successive turnover meter responses and made the probability of winning dependent on at least some of the amount wagered during that elapsed period. The claims were fairly based because the specification disclosed the elapsed-period integer and did not require the period to be longer than a game cycle. Hyperlink did not anticipate because it was event or game-based, not time-based. ActivData II+ would have fallen within claim 1 on the Court's construction, but Jupiters failed to prove an...

Court Disposition

The first appeal was upheld in part, limited to setting aside dismissal of the revocation cross-claim and remitting the lack of inventive step ground; otherwise the first appeal was dismissed. The second appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal from the judgment and orders of 5 August 2004 (the first appeal) be upheld in part.' 'The order made on 5 August 2004 dismissing the cross-claim for revocation and dealing with costs relating to the cross-claim be set aside.' 'The cross-claim for revocation be remitted to the primary judge for...