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
Hahn & Hahn Inc v Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd (2010/03199) [2022] ZAGPPHC 952 (5 December 2022)
The High Court revoked Patent No. 2010/03199 for lack of novelty and inventive step, and refused amendment and certification of validity.
Microsoft (SA) Proprietary Limited v You First Mobile (Proprietary) Limited (2020/59577) [2021] ZACCP 2; 2021 BIP 5 (CP) (21 June 2021)
The court ordered disclosure of foreign patent search reports and security for costs in a patent infringement and revocation dispute.
Sasol Dyno Nobel (Proprietary) Limited v Master Blaster (Proprietary) Limited and Another (P2004/8313) [2015] ZACCP 1; 2014 BIP 114 (CP) (4 February 2015)
The court allowed amendment of a patent specification and claims, accepted the published advertisement, and stayed related revocation proceedings pending their outcome.
Multichoice South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Barron and Another (P2002/10346) [2014] ZACCP 4; 2014 BIP 121 (CP) (3 December 2014)
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.
Pharma Dynamics (Proprietary) Limited v Bayer Pharma AG and Another (468/2013) [2014] ZASCA 123; [2014] 4 All SA 302 (SCA); 2014 BIP 69 (SCA) (19 September 2014)
The SCA held that Ruby infringed Bayer’s patent for drospirenone/ethinylestradiol, and rejected Pharma Dynamics’ attacks based on obviousness and divisional validity.
Strix Limited v Nu-World Industries (Pty) Ltd (95/4779) [2014] ZACCP 1; 2014 BIP 36 (CP) (23 June 2014)
Patent infringement claim over electric kettle overheat controls dismissed; the court held claim 1 lacked novelty and, in any event, the accused kettles did not infringe.
Ciplaagrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975) [2014] ZAGPPHC 96 (11 March 2014)
The court revoked Patent No. 1998/10975, holding that claims 1 to 29 were anticipated by an earlier patent and therefore lacked novelty.
Alcatraz Intergrated Intelligent Systems (Pty) Ltd v Intergra-Set (Pty) Ltd (4260/2005) [2010] ZACCP 8; 2010 BIP 94 (CP) (8 October 2010)
The court held that a patent revocation application was barred by res judicata because the validity dispute had already been finally decided between the same parties.
Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (95/0812) [2010] ZACCP 5; 2010 BIP 51 (CP) (30 April 2010)
The court found that the proposed amendments to claims 1 and 13 of South African Patent No 95/0812 did not cure the invalidity for lack of inventive step as previously determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The amendments, which introduced a second mounting means, did not add inventive ingenuity over the prior art, particularly the Dreyer patent, which already disclosed the relevant features. The court held that the specification failed to clearly describe the mounting means and that the alleged advantages of the invention were not substantiated in the specification. As the patent remaine…
Source excerpt
SmithKline Beecham plc and Another v Sandoz AG and Another (96/3472) [2010] ZACCP 3; 2010 BIP 25 (CP) (14 April 2010)
The court granted an application to amend patent claims for an amoxycillin/clavulanate paediatric formulation, rejecting opposition based on scope and validity.
Explore more
