South Africa Case Law

Timrite (Pty) Ltd and Another v Vesper Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/063620)

Timrite (Pty) Ltd and Another v Vesper Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/063620) [2025] ZACCP 2 (12 June 2025)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

2023/063620

Judge

K Strydom

The court found that the issues raised in the amendment application, specifically the objections of lack of fair basis and continuing invalidity, are intertwined with those in the pending declaration of non-infringement application. Determining the amendment application in isolation would risk rendering the pending proceedings irrelevant and could prejudice the parties. The court has discretion under section 51(9) of the Patents Act to manage the proceedings as it sees fit. Given the overlap and the fact that the parties' arguments and evidence are rooted in the same expert affidavit, the cou…

Source excerpt

• Patent Amendment
• Fair Basis
• Continuing Invalidity
• Prior Art
• Procedural Separation

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

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

EMS Industries (Pty) Ltd v Inteletrack CC (PATENT 2010/01326)

EMS Industries (Pty) Ltd v Inteletrack CC (PATENT 2010/01326) [2015] ZAGPPHC 696 (7 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

PATENT 2010/01326

Judge

Jansen

Patent infringement dispute over a brake hose coupling turned on construction of “gasket” and inventiveness. The court found no infringement but upheld the patent as non-obvious.

• Patent Infringement
• Inventive Step
• Claim Construction
• Doctrine Of Equivalents
• Prior Art
• Expert Evidence

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

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (95/0812)

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (95/0812) [2010] ZACCP 5; 2010 BIP 51 (CP) (30 April 2010)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

95/0812

Judge

Murphy

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

• Patent Amendment
• Inventive Step
• Novelty
• Revocation
• Prior Art
• Procedural Irregularity

Clipsal Australia (Pty) Ltd and Another v Trust Electrical Wholesalers and Another (125/06)

Clipsal Australia (Pty) Ltd and Another v Trust Electrical Wholesalers and Another (125/06) [2007] ZASCA 24; [2007] 4 All SA 1082 (SCA); 2009 (3) SA 292 (SCA); 2007 BIP 432 (SCA) (23 March 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

125/06

Judges

Harms, Streicher, Cloete, Lewis, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in finding that the registered design lacked novelty and originality. The court confirmed that mosaicing prior art is not permissible for assessing novelty in design law. The registered design was found to be new, as none of the prior art documents disclosed the design as a whole, and the differences identified by the respondents were insubstantial and related only to secondary features. The court clarified that originality under the Designs Act requires independent creation and not mere absence of commonality. The respondents' produc…

Source excerpt

• Registered Designs
• Novelty And Originality
• Designs Act 195 Of 1993
• Infringement
• Prior Art
• Remedies For Infringement