Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd (278/07) [2008] ZASCA 46; 2008 BIP 14 (SCA) (31 March 2008)

Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd (278/07) [2008] ZASCA 46; 2008 BIP 14 (SCA) (31 March 2008)

The court found that while the Dreyer patent disclosed all but one element of the invention, the remaining integer—the projection of the seeding tube into the slot—did not constitute an inventive step. The specification did not indicate any benefit from this feature, and the only argument advanced was that it improved accuracy of seed placement. The court held that a skilled person, seeking to ensure accurate seed placement, would naturally extend the tube into the slot, as disclosed in the Anderson patent. Therefore, the claimed invention was obvious and did not involve an inventive step. The patent was invalid on this ground.

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 46
Parties
Appellant: Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ausplow (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2008
Case Number
278/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court of the Commissioner of Patents
Outcome
Appeal upheld; patent revoked subject to possible amendment application.
Judges
Streicher, Nugent, Heher, Hurt, Snyders
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Inventive Step, Novelty, Revocation of Patent, State of the Art
Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Inventive Step Novelty Revocation of Patent State of the Art

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether South African Patent No. 95/0812 is valid in light of prior art.
  2. 2 Whether the invention involves an inventive step as required by the Patents Act.
  3. 3 Whether the patent should be revoked for lack of novelty or inventive step.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the Dreyer patent disclosed all but one element of the invention, the remaining integer—the projection of the seeding tube into the slot—did not constitute an inventive step. The specification did not indicate any benefit from this feature, and the only argument advanced was that it improved accuracy of seed placement. The court held that a skilled person, seeking to ensure accurate seed placement, would naturally extend the tube into the slot, as disclosed in the Anderson patent. Therefore, the claimed invention was obvious and did not involve an inventive step. The patent was invalid on this ground.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; patent revoked subject to possible amendment application.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.
  • The defendant's counterclaim for revocation of South African Patent No. 95/0812 is granted and, subject to the orders below, the patent is revoked.