South Africa Case Law

Pasadena Leather Products CC t/a Pasadena Products and Another v Resca and Another (137/2016)

Pasadena Leather Products CC t/a Pasadena Products and Another v Resca and Another (137/2016) [2016] ZASCA 204; 2016 BIP 63 (SCA) (15 December 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

137/2016

Judges

Leach, Swain, Dambuza, Mathopo, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a swivel holster did not infringe a patent for a lockable holster because it lacked the patent’s second camming surface.

• Patent Infringement
• Purposive Construction
• Essential Integers
• Lockable Holster
• Patents Act Interpretation
• Patent-infringement

I O Tech Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gallagher Group Ltd and Another (872/12)

I O Tech Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gallagher Group Ltd and Another (872/12) [2013] ZASCA 180; [2014] 2 All SA 134 (SCA); 2013 BIP 138 (SCA) (29 November 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

872/12

Judges

Navsa, Ponnan, Bosielo, Van der Merwe, Swain

Patent infringement appeal failed because the respondents did not prove that the alleged infringing energisers took every essential integer of the claims.

• Patent Infringement
• Expert Evidence
• Admissibility Of Documents
• Essential Integers
• Burden Of Proof
• Patent-infringement

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

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

Stauffer Chemical Company and Another v Safsan Marketing and Distribution (85/86)

Stauffer Chemical Company and Another v Safsan Marketing and Distribution (85/86) [1986] ZASCA 78 (18 August 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

85/86

Judges

Corbett, Viljoen, Hefer, Galgut, Nicholas

The court dismissed an appeal in a patent dispute, holding that GENEP PLUS did not infringe claim 1 because the relevant R2 radical was not an essential equivalent.

• Patent Infringement
• Chemical Equivalence
• Essential Integers
• Interpretation Of Claims
• Doctrine Of Equivalents
• Patent-infringement