LUCAS AND ANOR V PETERSON PORTABLE SAWING SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2001-404-3668

LUCAS AND ANOR V PETERSON PORTABLE SAWING SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2001-404-3668

The application to amend Claim 7 is adjourned to be heard and determined contemporaneously with the substantive infringement proceeding remitted by the Supreme Court because the amendment issues are intertwined with outstanding substantive issues, may require evidence and cross-examination, and could otherwise amount to an attempt to relitigate validity by presenting an alternative version after a declaration of invalidity.

Citation
openlaw-6c24b0e0_6ce4_4eb1_a9f7_0792f6869e28.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Rex Cameron Lucas; Second Plaintiff: G W Lucas & Sons Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Limited (in liquidation); Second Defendant: Carl James Peterson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Under the Patents Act 1953 / Application to Amend Patent Adjourned to Be Heard With Substantive Proceeding Remitted by the Supreme Court
Outcome
Application to amend Claim 7 adjourned to be heard and determined at the same time as the substantive infringement proceeding remitted by the Supreme Court; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Validity, Infringement, Prior Art, Obviousness, Jurisdiction to Amend
Intellectual Property Patents Civil Procedure Patent Amendment Validity Infringement Prior Art Obviousness +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex Cameron Lucas

First Plaintiff

G W Lucas & Sons Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Limited (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Carl James Peterson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Under the Patents Act 1953 / Application to Amend Patent Adjourned to Be Heard With Substantive Proceeding Remitted by the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to permit the proposed amendment under ss 39 and 40 of the Patents Act 1953
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment unlawfully enlarges the scope of the monopoly or is permissible as a correction/explanation
  3. 3 Whether the amendment application should be determined now or adjourned to be heard with the substantive remitted proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend Claim 7 is adjourned to be heard and determined contemporaneously with the substantive infringement proceeding remitted by the Supreme Court because the amendment issues are intertwined with outstanding substantive issues, may require evidence and cross-examination, and could otherwise amount to an attempt to relitigate validity by presenting an alternative version after a declaration of invalidity.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Claim 7 adjourned to be heard and determined at the same time as the substantive infringement proceeding remitted by the Supreme Court; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Application to amend Claim 7 adjourned to be heard and determined with the substantive proceeding
  • Costs reserved