20 Sept 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the scope and effect of exclusion cl 13(a) could not be resolved on strike out; the clause's drafting and context rendered its application unclear and determination requires extrinsic and factual evidence at trial, so it was inappropriate to strike out the Council's claim.
18 Jul 2019
Defendant failed to establish the requisite preponderant reasons to justify a separate preliminary claim-construction hearing under r10.15 given the practical demarcation uncertainties, modest quantum and significant risk of duplication and appeals; confidentiality claims over the specified documents are justified as they disclose commercially sensitive, non-public technical design information and removal would risk significant prejudice to defendant, but defendant must allow access to independent external experts under undertakings; plaintiff must provide the particulars it committed to and…
29 Jul 2016
Claim 18 must be read purposively: the patent's object is a latching mechanism configurable to end‑use requirements. Applying the skilled addressee standard the Stella does not infringe because its integral spigots mean it lacks the claimed 'drive member coupled to the snib' which is central to configurability. The Latch patent is nevertheless valid: it was novel and involved an inventive synergistic combination (driver coupled to snib plus dual receiver/back‑to‑back tailbars with co‑axial arrangement) not rendered obvious by prior art such as the Sentry, Albany and other known locks.
8 Oct 2015
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal denied because the High Court and Court of Appeal applied orthodox claim construction and there was no issue of public or general importance nor a miscarriage of justice; accordingly no appeal on infringement or cross-appeal on validity was permitted and costs were awarded to the respondents.
12 Dec 2013
Claim 1 must be construed purposively to require that the second part comprises the cooking chamber; a cooker whose lower part already comprises the cooking chamber and where extensions merely extend that existing chamber (the UFO cooker with extensions) does not fall within claim 1 and therefore does not infringe. The defendants failed to establish invalidity for want of novelty or obviousness on the evidence presented. The groundless threats counterclaim failed because proceedings were commenced and the alleged threats were not actionable in the circumstances. Costs awarded to defendants on…
11 Jun 2010
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate any arguable matter of significance beyond the parties and failed to show that the Court of Appeal's application of Lucas was manifestly wrong; consequently there was no appearance of substantial error warranting correction by this Court.
27 Feb 2008
The court found that the Press publication disclosed the air-intake jacket around the flue (integer (c)) and that the claimed invention in Claims 1 and 10 is a combination of known elements which, given the prior art and common general knowledge, was obvious to a skilled but non-inventive person; accordingly Claims 1 and 10 are invalid for lack of inventive step under s 41(1)(f). Independently, the DVI-165 does not infringe because it lacks an exhaust duct at the top-front of the firebox (integer (b)) and does not have 'fins' as claimed in Claim 10.
30 Mar 2006
Claim 7, read purposively and in its ordinary broad terms, encompassed the Lewis mill construction: the rails were separate entities movably coupled via mounting means and were adjustable in unison by moving means; the Lewis prior disclosure therefore anticipated claim 7 rendering it invalid for lack of novelty. Alternatively, combining the known feature of separate rails with known moving means (as in the Lewis mill) involved no inventive step because there was no synergistic interaction between the integers and mechanising a manual adjustment by standard means was obvious.
4 Mar 2005
Claim 7 is valid and not anticipated or obvious: the inventive step resides in the novel combination of known elements producing synchronized vertical movement of separate rails in an open end frame, a combination that was not disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art; appellants infringed claim 7 and the second appellant is personally liable as participant in the common design.