South Africa Case Law

Timrite (Pty) Ltd and Another v Vesper Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/063620)

Timrite (Pty) Ltd and Another v Vesper Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/063620) [2025] ZACCP 2 (12 June 2025)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

2023/063620

Judge

K Strydom

The court found that the issues raised in the amendment application, specifically the objections of lack of fair basis and continuing invalidity, are intertwined with those in the pending declaration of non-infringement application. Determining the amendment application in isolation would risk rendering the pending proceedings irrelevant and could prejudice the parties. The court has discretion under section 51(9) of the Patents Act to manage the proceedings as it sees fit. Given the overlap and the fact that the parties' arguments and evidence are rooted in the same expert affidavit, the cou…

Source excerpt

• Patent Amendment
• Fair Basis
• Continuing Invalidity
• Prior Art
• Procedural Separation

Multichoice South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Barron and Another (P2002/10346)

Multichoice South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Barron and Another (P2002/10346) [2014] ZACCP 4; 2014 BIP 121 (CP) (3 December 2014)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

P2002/10346

Judge

J W Louw

Patent revocation proceedings over a video-on-demand system. The court held the claims lacked novelty and inventive step, were insufficiently described, and were not fairly based.

• Patent Revocation
• Novelty
• Inventive Step
• Insufficiency
• Fair Basis
• Patent-revocation

African Explosives Ltd v Sasol Dyno Nobel (Pty) Ltd (1991/2194)

African Explosives Ltd v Sasol Dyno Nobel (Pty) Ltd (1991/2194) [2012] ZAGPPHC 207; 2012 BIP 55 (CP) (13 September 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1991/2194

Judge

Potterill

High Court patent-amendment dispute over whether changes to claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 introduced new matter or broadened the original scope.

• Patent Amendment
• Scope Of Claim
• New Matter
• Fair Basis
• Patents Act Section 51
• Patent-amendment

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