8 Oct 2008
HAMMAR MASKIN AB AND ORS V STEELBRO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-000977
- Citation
- openlaw-00f96592_3853_4076_aa33_ffd73d81509b.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The patent is to be given purposive construction and, properly construed, the Hammar patent is valid (revocation grounds rejected) because the negative inclination solution involved an inventive step; however infringement was not established because Steelbro's SB361/401 lack the claimed separate bearing component in the support sleeve, and the copyright claim failed because the Steelbro embodiments do not reproduce a substantial part of Hammar's drawings despite Steelbro likely adopting the idea of negative inclination.