Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Intellectual Property [2014] ZASCA 208

Marine 3 Technologies Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Afrigroup Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (0018/14)

Marine 3 Technologies Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Afrigroup Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (0018/14) [2014] ZASCA 208; 2015 (2) SA 387 (SCA); 2014 BIP 104 (SCA) (1 December 2014)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
0018/14
Judges
Ponnan, Swain, Mathopo, Mocumie, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court below erred in its restrictive interpretation of the terms 'dispersed' and 'dissolved' in the patent claims, failing to consider the context of the specification and the understanding of a skilled chemist. The evidence established that the surfactant composition described in claim 1 could be manufactured and had in fact been produced and sold commercially. The theoretical objections raised by the respondents' experts were not supported by practical attempts to manufacture the composition. The court emphasized that utility is demonstrated by actu…

Source excerpt

  • Patent Revocation
  • Utility Requirement
  • Patents Act 1978
  • Interpretation Of Claims
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2014] ZAGPPHC 96

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
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2014] ZACCP 5

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
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [1999] ZASCA 21

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
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [1986] ZASCA 78

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
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [1985] ZASCA 132

Johnson and Johnson (Pty) Ltd. v Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Another (86/84/av)

Johnson and Johnson (Pty) Ltd. v Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Another (86/84/av) [1985] ZASCA 132 (27 November 1985)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
86/84/av
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Hefer, Galgut, Nicholas

The court held that Johnson and Johnson’s Panty Nappy infringed claim 1 of Kimberly-Clark’s diaper patent and dismissed the appeal with costs.

  • Patent Infringement
  • Patent Claim Construction
  • Expert Evidence
  • Interpretation Of Claims
  • Patent-infringement
  • Patent-claim-construction
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.