Rehm Pty Ltd v. Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 232

Rehm Pty Ltd v. Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 232

Claim 1 is infringed as Hirsch products include all critical integers of the claim; claim 1 is not invalid for want of fair basing as the claim is broadly described and not inconsistent with specification; claim 1 is not invalid for lack of utility as expedients such as avoidance of digit duplication or viewing restriction can be supplied by a qualified reader, with the promise of the invention being directed to a particular aspect of security.

Parties
Applicant: REHM PTY. LIMITED; First Respondent: WEBSTERS SECURITY SYSTEMS (INTERNATIONAL) PTY. LIMITED; Second Respondent: EXPRESS ALARM SUPPLIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LIMITED; Third Respondent: TRYCUP PTY. LIMITED; Fourth Respondent: WILLIAM HOWARD; Fifth Respondent: RICHARD TREACY MAILEY; Sixth Respondent: RICHARD WILLIAM JENNINGS
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 1988
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Proceeding / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Applicant's claim 1 is infringed; claim 7 is not infringed; claim 1 is valid (not invalid for fair basing or utility).
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Claim Construction, Fair Basing, Utility
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Claim Construction Fair Basing Utility

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 9 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REHM PTY. LIMITED

Applicant

WEBSTERS SECURITY SYSTEMS (INTERNATIONAL) PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

EXPRESS ALARM SUPPLIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

TRYCUP PTY. LIMITED

Third Respondent

WILLIAM HOWARD

Fourth Respondent

RICHARD TREACY MAILEY

Fifth Respondent

RICHARD WILLIAM JENNINGS

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Proceeding / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hirsch products infringe applicant's patent (claims 1 and 7)
  2. 2 Whether claim 1 is fairly based on matter described in the specification
  3. 3 Whether claim 1 lacks utility due to inclusion of embodiments obviously useless

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 is infringed as Hirsch products include all critical integers of the claim; claim 1 is not invalid for want of fair basing as the claim is broadly described and not inconsistent with specification; claim 1 is not invalid for lack of utility as expedients such as avoidance of digit duplication or viewing restriction can be supplied by a qualified reader, with the promise of the invention being directed to a particular aspect of security.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim 1 is infringed; claim 7 is not infringed; claim 1 is valid (not invalid for fair basing or utility).

Orders

  • Proceedings stood over to a date for further submissions/orders regarding injunctive and ancillary relief, and the conduct of any inquiry as to damages or account of profits.