Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Merial and Others v Cipla Vet (Pty) Ltd (20772/2014) [2016] ZASCA 57; 2016 BIP 1 (SCA) (1 April 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Merial’s patent claims were sufficiently clear and that Cipla Vet’s Fiprotec product infringed the patent.
Merial and Others v Cipla Vet (Pty) Ltd (96/8057) [2014] ZACCP 3; 2014 BIP 42 (CP) (24 July 2014)
Patent infringement action over an anti-parasitic pet treatment failed because the plaintiffs did not prove the defendant’s product met key claim integers.
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 infringed claim 1 of the patent and rejected challenges based on novelty, inventive step and clarity.
Schlumberger Logelco Incorporated v Coflixip SA (256/2001) [2002] ZASCA 99; 2003 (1) SA 16 (SCA) (6 September 2002)
Patent appeal about a flexible riser system: infringement was found, and challenges based on novelty, obviousness, and clarity all failed.
Bateman Equipment Ltd and Another v Wren Group (Pty) Ltd (480/97) [1999] ZASCA 89; 2000 (1) SA 649 (SCA) (29 November 1999)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the requirement to furnish 'full reasons' for a patent amendment under section 51(1) of the Patents Act does not apply to amendments made during litigation under section 51(9). The court found that the reasons provided by the patentee were sufficient in the context of the proceedings and that the onus was on the objector to show that the lack of reasons justified refusal of the amendment. Regarding clarity, the court determined that the claims, when read as a whole and from the perspective of a skilled addressee, provided reasonable certainty and were not…
Source excerpt
Explore more
