Surefoot IP Holdings Pty Ltd v All Footings Solutions Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1181

Surefoot IP Holdings Pty Ltd v All Footings Solutions Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1181

The Amended Position Statement on Infringement was sufficiently precise for the four-sided footing plates because the Applicant's use of one exemplar and identification of variations made clear how its construction was put for those products. However, the circular footplate was sufficiently different that treating it merely as a variation created potential confusion as to integers referring to edges of the planar web. The Applicant was therefore required to file and serve a further amended position statement separately dealing with the circular footplate and clearly identifying the precise features corresponding to the asserted claim integers, but was not required to justify or explain...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceedings / Determined on the Papers Concerning Adequacy of the Applicant's Amended Position Statement on Infringement
Outcome
The Court ordered the Applicant to file and serve a Further Amended Position Statement separately dealing with the circular footplate; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['position Statement on Infringement' 'adequacy of Position Statement' 'identification of Features of Allegedly Infringing Products' 'patent Claim Integers']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['position Statement on Infringement' 'adequacy of Position Statement' 'identification of Features of Allegedly Infringing Products' 'patent Claim Integers']

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 Proceedings / Determined on the Papers Concerning Adequacy of the Applicant's Amended Position Statement on Infringement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Amended Position Statement on Infringement clearly identified the features of each allegedly infringing footing plate corresponding to each integer of the asserted patent claims.' 'Whether the Applicant was required to deal separately with each of the seven allegedly infringing products rather than using one exemplar and noting variations.' 'Whether the circular footplate example required separate treatment to avoid confusion about integers referring to edges of the planar web.' 'Whether the Applicant was required in the Amended Position Statement on Infringement to justify or explain its claim construction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Position Statement on Infringement was sufficiently precise for the four-sided footing plates because the Applicant's use of one exemplar and identification of variations made clear how its construction was put for those products. However, the circular footplate was sufficiently different that treating it merely as a variation created potential confusion as to integers referring to edges of the planar web. The Applicant was therefore required to file and serve a further amended position statement separately dealing with the circular footplate and clearly identifying the precise features corresponding to the asserted claim integers, but was not required to justify or explain...

Court Disposition

The Court ordered the Applicant to file and serve a Further Amended Position Statement separately dealing with the circular footplate; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['By 4:00pm on 8 October 2021, the Applicant file and serve a Further Amended Position Statement that separately deals with the circular footplate (example (g)), clearly identifying for that example the precise features which are said to correspond with the integers of the asserted claims of the patent in suit.'...