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
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.
Orica Mining Services SA (Pty) Ltd v Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd (233/2016) [2017] ZASCA 48; [2017] 2 All SA 796 (SCA); 2017 BIP 1 (SCA) (31 March 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that ‘between’ in the patent claims was not limited to a linearly positioned carriage and found Elbroc’s rig infringed.
Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Another (82/2015) [2016] ZASCA 56; 2017 (5) SA 283 (SCA); 2016 BIP 27 (SCA) (1 April 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Registrar may extend the time for a patent restoration counterstatement under section 16(2), despite Regulation 83.
Merck Sharpe Dohme Group v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (20282/2014) [2015] ZASCA 175; 2016 (3) SA 22 (SCA); 2015 BIP 101 (SCA) (27 November 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 92 patent did not anticipate the claims of the 98 patent. The prior art disclosed only Triacetin as a preferred hydrophobic carrier and did not provide an individualised description or enablement of the specific combinations of hydrophobic carriers claimed in the 98 patent. The skilled person, armed only with the 92 patent, would not be able to arrive at the claimed invention without significant ingenuity and experimentation. The 98 patent represented a substantial technical advance, providing prolonged duration of activity and other advantages not ta…
Source excerpt
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
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
University of Pretoria v Registrar of Patents and Others (ZA2004/2575, ZA2005/08679) [2011] ZACCP 3; 2011 BIP 41 (CP) (25 October 2011)
The court held that the application for South African patent 2004/2575 lapsed on 1 October 2005 due to the expiry of the extension period for acceptance of the complete specification, as no further application for extension was made, no good cause was shown, and no prescribed fee was paid. The peremptory language of section 40 of the Patents Act prevails over the general extension powers in section 16(2), and the Registrar was not empowered to grant extensions after the application had lapsed. Furthermore, the application also lapsed due to failure to publish the acceptance within the prescri…
Source excerpt
Ausplow (Pty) Limited v North Park Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd (Formerly Marais Engineering CC) (95/0812) [2007] ZACCP 3; 2007 BIP 1 (CP) (30 January 2007)
The court found that the defendant’s Voor Planter infringed claim 1 of the patent and rejected challenges based on novelty, inventive step and clarity.
Schlumberger Logelco Incorporated v Coflixip SA (256/2001) [2002] ZASCA 99; 2003 (1) SA 16 (SCA) (6 September 2002)
Patent appeal about a flexible riser system: infringement was found, and challenges based on novelty, obviousness, and clarity all failed.
Syntheta (Pty) Ltd previously Delta G Scientific (Pty) Ltd v Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and Another (449/96) [1998] ZASCA 74; 1999 (1) SA 85 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 445 (A) (21 September 1998)
The SCA refused a compulsory patent licence, holding that the applicant failed to prove patent abuse, non-working, or that its proposed royalty was reasonable.
Explore more
