24 Mar 2010
HAMMAR MASKIN AB AND ORS V STEELBRO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA692/2008
- Citation
- openlaw-3a9b6882_b3a1_43b5_974a_ce6eb2efb759.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Taking a purposive construction of the patent as a whole, the Court held that 'bearing' in claim 1 is functional (a bearing relationship between parts) and does not require a separate physical bearing component; accordingly the Steelbro SB361/401 models infringe the patent; the requirement that the pivot pin be 'connected to the chassis' is functional and need not mean direct attachment; the inutility ground on cross-appeal was not permitted and lacked merit.