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.
Master Blaster (Pty) Ltd v Sasol Dyno (Pty) Ltd (8313/2004) [2020] ZAGPPHC 376; 2021 BIP 3 (GP) (26 May 2020)
The court held that exceptional circumstances justified departing from the usual costs rule after a withdrawn patent revocation application, and ordered the patentee to pay costs.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
Mantella Trading 310 (Pty) Ltd v Kusile Mining (Pty) Ltd (1998/7391) [2014] ZAGPPHC 204 (21 February 2014)
The court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal after finding reasonable prospects that another court might reach a different conclusion.
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v 3MFuture Africa (Pty) Ltd (47/2013) [2013] ZASCA 157; 2013 BIP 128 (SCA) (22 November 2013)
The court held that the claimed invention was not confined to authorising only single transactions but extended to authorising multiple transactions at the selection of the account holder. The language of the claim did not support the respondent's construction that the method was limited to single transactions. The prior art (McAllister patent) disclosed a method that allowed an account holder to enable or disable an account for transactions, which anticipated the essential elements of the claimed invention. As a result, claims 17, 18, and 19 were not novel and were invalid. The patent was th…
Source excerpt
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.
Buzbee (Proprietary) Limited v Registrar of Patents and Anoter (2002/8482, A644/08) [2010] ZACCP 4; 2010 BIP 42 (CP) (14 April 2010)
The court upheld a Registrar’s extension of time to file a counterstatement in patent revocation proceedings and held that Regulation 90(1)’s deeming provision was invalid.
Explore more
