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
2 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 [2021] ZASCA 22

Groundprobe Pty Ltd and Another v Reutech Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (1226/2019)

Groundprobe Pty Ltd and Another v Reutech Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (1226/2019) [2021] ZASCA 22; 2021 (3) SA 473 (SCA); 2021 BIP 4 (SCA); [2021] HIPR 175 (SCA) (19 March 2021)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1226/2019
Judges
Ponnan, Dambuza, Molemela, Ledwaba, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a patent appeal, holding that mounting an existing slope-monitoring radar system on a motor vehicle did not involve an inventive step.

  • Patent Inventive Step
  • Obviousness
  • Revocation Of Patent
  • Work Area Monitor
  • Prior Art
  • Combination Claims
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2019] ZASCA 115

Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Outokumpu OYJ and Another (879/2018)

Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Outokumpu OYJ and Another (879/2018) [2019] ZASCA 115; 2020 (4) SA 441 (SCA); 2019 BIP 15 (SCA) (18 September 2019)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
879/2018
Judges
Navsa, Tshiqi, Swain, Molemela, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Sandvik’s patent was obvious in light of the prior art and revoked it, upholding the appeal with costs.

  • Patent Revocation
  • Inventive Step
  • Obviousness
  • Prior Art
  • Patents Act 1978
  • Patent-revocation
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2014] ZACCP 1

Strix Limited v Nu-World Industries (Pty) Ltd (95/4779)

Strix Limited v Nu-World Industries (Pty) Ltd (95/4779) [2014] ZACCP 1; 2014 BIP 36 (CP) (23 June 2014)

Court
Court of the Commissioner of Patents
Case number
95/4779
Judge
F G Preller

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.

  • Patent Infringement
  • Novelty
  • Prior Art
  • Patent Claim Construction
  • Patent-infringement
  • Patent-validity
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2011] ZASCA 123

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (742/10)

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (742/10) [2011] ZASCA 123; 2011 BIP 12 (CP); [2011] 4 All SA 221 (SCA) (7 September 2011)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
742/10
Judges
Harms, Ponnan, Snyders, Malan, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal allowed Ausplow to amend its patent specification, holding the amended claims were not shown to be obvious or otherwise invalid.

  • Patent Amendment
  • Inventive Step
  • Obviousness
  • Revocation Of Patent
  • Claim Construction
  • Patent-amendment
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2008] ZASCA 46

Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd (278/07)

Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd (278/07) [2008] ZASCA 46; 2008 BIP 14 (SCA) (31 March 2008)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
278/07
Judges
Streicher, Nugent, Heher, Hurt, Snyders

The Supreme Court of Appeal revoked a patent for seeding machinery, holding that the remaining claimed feature was obvious and involved no inventive step.

  • Patent Infringement
  • Inventive Step
  • Novelty
  • Revocation Of Patent
  • State Of The Art
  • Patent-revocation
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2008] ZASCA 37

Buckman Laboratories (Pty) Ltd v Bromine Compounds Ltd (655/06)

Buckman Laboratories (Pty) Ltd v Bromine Compounds Ltd (655/06) [2008] ZASCA 37; 2008 BIP 21 (SCA) (28 March 2008)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
655/06
Judges
Streicher, Nugent, Heher, Hurt, Snyders

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that claims in a patent for water disinfection lacked an inventive step because the process was obvious in light of prior art.

  • Patent Revocation
  • Inventive Step
  • Obviousness
  • Patents Act
  • Expert Evidence
  • Patent-revocation
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2007] ZASCA 50

Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd v Flag and Flagpole Industries t/a National Flags (72/06 , Patent Case 97/10535)

Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd v Flag and Flagpole Industries t/a National Flags (72/06 , Patent Case 97/10535) [2007] ZASCA 50; 2007 BIP 44 (SCA) (3 April 2007)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
72/06
Judges
Streicher, Farlam, Nugent, Cloete, Ponnan

The SCA held that Sunsmart’s patent and registered design for a flying banner were infringed and valid, and upheld interdicts and related relief.

  • Patent Infringement
  • Novelty
  • Obviousness
  • Design Registration
  • Aesthetic Design
  • Damages Enquiry
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [1995] ZASCA 131

G I Marketing CC v Fraser-Johnston (172/94)

G I Marketing CC v Fraser-Johnston (172/94) [1995] ZASCA 131; [1996] 1 All SA 1 (A) (20 November 1995)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
172/94
Judges
Corbett, E M Grosskopf, Nestadt, Harms, Scott

The court dismissed an appeal in a patent revocation dispute, holding key claims of two patents lacked novelty and that one claim was ambiguous.

  • Patent Revocation
  • Novelty
  • Obviousness
  • Ambiguity
  • State Of The Art
  • Amendment Of Patent Claims
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [1986] ZASCA 154

Kreepy Krauly (Pty) Ltd. v Hofmann (162/86)

Kreepy Krauly (Pty) Ltd. v Hofmann (162/86) [1986] ZASCA 154 (28 November 1986)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
162/86
Judges
Corbett, Joubert, Smalberger, Galgut, Nicholas

Patent revocation appeal dismissed; the court held the claims, read purposively, described two flow paths and were not invalid for anticipation, ambiguity, insufficiency, or obviousness.

  • Patent Revocation
  • Claim Construction
  • Anticipation
  • Obviousness
  • Utility
  • Material Misrepresentation
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.