South Africa Case Law

Orica Mining Services SA (Pty) Ltd v Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd (233/2016)

Orica Mining Services SA (Pty) Ltd v Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd (233/2016) [2017] ZASCA 48; [2017] 2 All SA 796 (SCA); 2017 BIP 1 (SCA) (31 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

233/2016

Judges

Maya, Swain, Dambuza, Nicholls, Mbatha

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that ‘between’ in the patent claims was not limited to a linearly positioned carriage and found Elbroc’s rig infringed.

• Patent Infringement
• Claim Construction
• Purposive Interpretation
• Patents Act 1978
• Scope Of Monopoly
• Patent-infringement

Orica Mining Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd (10382/2001)

Orica Mining Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd (10382/2001) [2015] ZAGPPHC 836; 2015 BIP 116 (CP) (11 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10382/2001

Judge

P.M. Mabuse

The High Court dismissed a patent infringement claim, holding that a carriage offset from the line between two telescopic props was not “between” them.

• Patent Infringement
• Claim Construction
• Interpretation Of Terms
• Expert Evidence
• Scope Of Monopoly
• Patent-infringement

EMS Industries (Pty) Ltd v Inteletrack CC (PATENT 2010/01326)

EMS Industries (Pty) Ltd v Inteletrack CC (PATENT 2010/01326) [2015] ZAGPPHC 696 (7 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

PATENT 2010/01326

Judge

Jansen

Patent infringement dispute over a brake hose coupling turned on construction of “gasket” and inventiveness. The court found no infringement but upheld the patent as non-obvious.

• Patent Infringement
• Inventive Step
• Claim Construction
• Doctrine Of Equivalents
• Prior Art
• Expert Evidence

Camworth Techologies Ltd v Videx Wire Products (Pty) Ltd t/a Videx Mining Products (702/2012)

Camworth Techologies Ltd v Videx Wire Products (Pty) Ltd t/a Videx Mining Products (702/2012) [2013] ZASCA 112; 2013 BIP 57 (SCA) (17 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

702/2012

Judges

Nugent, Ponnan, Bosielo, Wallis, Swain

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Videx’s pot did not infringe Camworth’s patent because it lacked essential claim integers and operated differently.

• Patent Infringement
• Claim Construction
• Essential Integers
• Declaration Of Non Infringement
• Patent-infringement
• Claim-construction

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (742/10)

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (742/10) [2011] ZASCA 123; 2011 BIP 12 (CP); [2011] 4 All SA 221 (SCA) (7 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

742/10

Judges

Harms, Ponnan, Snyders, Malan, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal allowed Ausplow to amend its patent specification, holding the amended claims were not shown to be obvious or otherwise invalid.

• Patent Amendment
• Inventive Step
• Obviousness
• Revocation Of Patent
• Claim Construction
• Patent-amendment

Nampak Products Ltd and Another v Man-Dirk (Pty) Ltd (162/97)

Nampak Products Ltd and Another v Man-Dirk (Pty) Ltd (162/97) [1999] ZASCA 21; [1999] 2 All SA 543 (A) (26 March 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

162/97

Judges

Vivier, Howie, Schutz, Plewman, Melunsky

The court held that the respondent's product does not infringe the patent because it does not contain a 'second bag' as required by the main claim. The claim language is clear and unambiguous, and the ordinary meaning of 'bag' must be applied. The sleeve used by the respondent is not a second bag but a restraining sleeve, which does not satisfy the claim's requirements. The principle of purposive construction was found to be inapplicable in this case due to the lack of ambiguity or technical complexity in the claim language. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's product was found not…

Source excerpt

• Patent Infringement
• Claim Construction
• Purposive Construction
• Interpretation Of Claims

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

Raubenheimer and Another v Kreepy Krauly (Pty) Ltd. (409/83)

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

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

409/83

Judges

Corbett, Trengove, Hoexter, Van Heerden, Nicholas

The court held that the swimming-pool cleaner did not infringe the patent because its suction was never cut off; periodic flow reversal was not enough.

• Patent Infringement
• Claim Construction
• Device Comparison
• Patent-infringement
• Claim-construction
• Device-comparison