Ausplow (Pty) Limited v North Park Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd (Formerly Marais Engineering CC) (95/0812) [2007] ZACCP 3; 2007 BIP 1 (CP) (30 January 2007)

Ausplow (Pty) Limited v North Park Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd (Formerly Marais Engineering CC) (95/0812) [2007] ZACCP 3; 2007 BIP 1 (CP) (30 January 2007)

The court found that the defendant's Voor Planter incorporated all essential integers of claim 1 of SA Patent No 95/0812, including a closing tool as defined by the patent. The court held that none of the prior art patents relied upon by the defendant anticipated the invention, as each failed to disclose at least one essential integer. The inventive step lay in the unique combination of features, particularly the dedicated closing tool fixed to the lower extremity of the seeding tube, which was not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The court further found that the claims of the patent were clear and provided reasonable certainty to a skilled addressee. Accordingly, the defendant's...

Citation
[2007] ZACCP 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Ausplow (Pty) Limited; Defendant: North Park Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd (Formerly Marais Engineering CC)
Court
Court of the Commissioner of Patents
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Case Number
95/0812
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Infringement and Validity of Patent
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds; defendant's counterclaim for revocation is dismissed; interdict and ancillary relief granted.
Judges
B.R. Southwood
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Novelty, Inventive Step, Clarity of Claims, Patents Act 1978
Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Novelty Inventive Step Clarity of Claims Patents Act 1978

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ausplow (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

North Park Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd (Formerly Marais Engineering CC)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Infringement and Validity of Patent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's product infringes claim 1 of SA Patent No 95/0812.
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for lack of novelty under section 61(1)(c) read with section 25 of the Patents Act, 57 of 1978.
  3. 3 Whether the patent is invalid for lack of inventive step under section 61(1)(c) read with section 25 of the Patents Act, 57 of 1978.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's Voor Planter incorporated all essential integers of claim 1 of SA Patent No 95/0812, including a closing tool as defined by the patent. The court held that none of the prior art patents relied upon by the defendant anticipated the invention, as each failed to disclose at least one essential integer. The inventive step lay in the unique combination of features, particularly the dedicated closing tool fixed to the lower extremity of the seeding tube, which was not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The court further found that the claims of the patent were clear and provided reasonable certainty to a skilled addressee. Accordingly, the defendant's...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds; defendant's counterclaim for revocation is dismissed; interdict and ancillary relief granted.

Orders

  • The defendant's counterclaim for revocation of SA Patent No 95/0812 on the grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventiveness and lack of clarity is dismissed.
  • The defendant is interdicted and restrained from infringing SA Patent No 95/0812 by making, using, exercising, disposing of, offering to dispose of and importing the versions of the Voor Planter depicted in the drawings and photographs in bundle E on p7-32.