South Africa Case Law

Merck Sharpe Dohme Group v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (20282/2014)

Merck Sharpe Dohme Group v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (20282/2014) [2015] ZASCA 175; 2016 (3) SA 22 (SCA); 2015 BIP 101 (SCA) (27 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20282/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Theron, Wallis, Petse, Willis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 92 patent did not anticipate the claims of the 98 patent. The prior art disclosed only Triacetin as a preferred hydrophobic carrier and did not provide an individualised description or enablement of the specific combinations of hydrophobic carriers claimed in the 98 patent. The skilled person, armed only with the 92 patent, would not be able to arrive at the claimed invention without significant ingenuity and experimentation. The 98 patent represented a substantial technical advance, providing prolonged duration of activity and other advantages not ta…

Source excerpt

• Patent Novelty
• Anticipation
• Enablement
• Selection Patents
• Patents Act 1978
• Revocation Of Patent

Ciplaagrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975)

Ciplaagrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975) [2014] ZAGPPHC 96 (11 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1998/10975

Judge

Teffo

The court revoked Patent No. 1998/10975, holding that claims 1 to 29 were anticipated by an earlier patent and therefore lacked novelty.

• Patent Revocation
• Novelty
• Inventive Step
• Anticipation
• Expert Evidence
• Interpretation Of Claims

Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharo Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975)

Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharo Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975) [2014] ZACCP 5; 2014 BIP 27 (CP) (11 March 2014)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

1998/10975

Judge

Teffo

The court revoked a South African patent after finding claims 1 to 29 were anticipated by an earlier patent and lacked novelty under the Patents Act.

• Patent Novelty
• Anticipation
• Inventive Step
• Interpretation Of Claims
• Expert Evidence
• Revocation Of Patent

Abell v Screen Graphics CC (2005/6649)

Abell v Screen Graphics CC (2005/6649) [2010] ZACCP 2; 2010 BIP 18 (CP) (9 March 2010)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

2005/6649

Judge

B.R. Southwood

The court found that integer (e) of claim 1, which requires the banner of flexible material to be spanned by each rod in a plane defined by the rod and shaft, is an essential feature of the invention. The patent specification and claims do not suggest any alternative method of displaying the banner. The wording 'such that' and 'can' in integer (e) indicate that the banner must be installed in this manner for the invention to function as intended. Since the respondent's Lantern does not incorporate this feature, it does not infringe the patent. The applicant failed to prove infringement and di…

Source excerpt

• Patent Infringement
• Essential Integers
• Anticipation
• Interim Interdict
• Costs Award

Vari-Deals 101 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd (503/06)

Vari-Deals 101 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd (503/06) [2007] ZASCA 123; 2008 (3) 447 (SCA); 2007 BIP 69 (SCA) (27 September 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

503/06

Judges

Harms, Nugent, Ponnan, Combrinck, Hurt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants’ teardrop flag products infringed Sunsmart’s patent and registered design and dismissed the appeal.

• Patent Infringement
• Registered Design Infringement
• Anticipation
• Purposive Construction
• Contributory Infringement
• Patent-infringement

Water Renovation (Pty) Ltd v Gold Fields of SA Ltd (481/91)

Water Renovation (Pty) Ltd v Gold Fields of SA Ltd (481/91) [1993] ZASCA 169; 1994 (2) SA 588 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 33 (A) (12 November 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

481/91

Judges

Harms, Botha, E M Grosskopf, Milne, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the proposed amendment to the patent specification, specifically the introduction of insert A into claim 21 and its dependent claims, did not serve to distinguish the claims from the prior art disclosed in the Pulles paper. The court found that insert A was not an essential integer of the invention as described in the specification, and its inclusion was a stratagem rather than a substantive limitation. The patentee was bound by its admissions that claims 21 to 25 were only entitled to the priority date of the complete specification, making them anticipat…

Source excerpt

• Patent Amendment
• Priority Date
• Novelty
• Anticipation
• Co Inventorship
• Fair Basis

Kreepy Krauly (Pty) Ltd. v Hofmann (162/86)

Kreepy Krauly (Pty) Ltd. v Hofmann (162/86) [1986] ZASCA 154 (28 November 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

162/86

Judges

Corbett, Joubert, Smalberger, Galgut, Nicholas

Patent revocation appeal dismissed; the court held the claims, read purposively, described two flow paths and were not invalid for anticipation, ambiguity, insufficiency, or obviousness.

• Patent Revocation
• Claim Construction
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Utility
• Material Misrepresentation

Homecraft Steel Industries (Pty) Ltd. v S M Hare & Son (Pty) Ltd. and Another (38/84)

Homecraft Steel Industries (Pty) Ltd. v S M Hare & Son (Pty) Ltd. and Another (38/84) [1984] ZASCA 36; 1984 (3) SA 681 (A) (29 March 1984)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

38/84

Judges

Corbett, Kotze, Viljoen, Galgut, Howard

The court held that the appellant's registered design was valid, as it was not dictated solely by function and possessed visual appeal, particularly in the fluting. The design was not anticipated by the Osborn or Ventco elements, as they were substantially different in key visual respects. However, the respondents' fascia board did not infringe the registered design, as it differed materially in the number and shape of flutes and valleys, and the degree of novelty in the appellant's design was limited, restricting the scope of protection. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, but the co…

Source excerpt

• Registered Designs
• Novelty And Originality
• Anticipation
• Infringement Test
• Designs Act 1967