Raubenheimer and Another v Kreepy Krauly (Pty) Ltd. (409/83) [1985] ZASCA 66 (30 August 1985)

Raubenheimer and Another v Kreepy Krauly (Pty) Ltd. (409/83) [1985] ZASCA 66 (30 August 1985)

The court held that the Kreepy Krauly does not infringe the patent because it does not contain an automatic means for enabling the suction periodically to be cut off and re-applied, as required by claim 1. The evidence showed that while there is a periodic reversal of flow in the device, the suction line between the pump and the mouth of the device remains open at all times. The hammer valve alternately closes off one suction passage and then the other, but never both simultaneously, so suction is never interrupted. The expert evidence presented by the appellants did not establish that suction was cut off, only that flow reversed. The court agreed with the reasoning of the lower courts...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 66
Parties
Appellant: Johann Nicolaas Raubenheimer; Appellant: Peacock Investments (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Kreepy Krauly (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Permkleenpool (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 1985
Case Number
409/83
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Trengove, Hoexter, Van Heerden, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Claim Construction, Device Comparison
Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Claim Construction Device Comparison

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johann Nicolaas Raubenheimer

Appellant

Peacock Investments (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Kreepy Krauly (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Permkleenpool (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Kreepy Krauly device infringes SA Patent No 71/0231.
  2. 2 Whether the Kreepy Krauly contains an 'automatic means for enabling the suction periodically to be cut off and re-applied' as required by claim 1 of the patent.
  3. 3 Whether the periodic reversal of flow in the Kreepy Krauly constitutes a cut-off of suction within the meaning of the patent claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Kreepy Krauly does not infringe the patent because it does not contain an automatic means for enabling the suction periodically to be cut off and re-applied, as required by claim 1. The evidence showed that while there is a periodic reversal of flow in the device, the suction line between the pump and the mouth of the device remains open at all times. The hammer valve alternately closes off one suction passage and then the other, but never both simultaneously, so suction is never interrupted. The expert evidence presented by the appellants did not establish that suction was cut off, only that flow reversed. The court agreed with the reasoning of the lower courts...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs, including the costs of two counsel.