South Africa Case Law

McKelvey and Others v Deton Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Another (657/95)

McKelvey and Others v Deton Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Another (657/95) [1997] ZASCA 57; 1998 (1) SA 374 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 569 (A); (28 May 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

657/95

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Nienaber, Harms, Schutz, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 25(7) of the Patents Act adopts the whole contents approach, invalidating several Deton patent claims for lack of novelty.

• Patent Novelty
• Whole Contents Approach
• Prior Claim Approach
• Double Patenting
• Priority Date
• Patent Infringement

Water Renovation (Pty) Ltd v Gold Fields of SA Ltd (481/91)

Water Renovation (Pty) Ltd v Gold Fields of SA Ltd (481/91) [1993] ZASCA 169; 1994 (2) SA 588 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 33 (A) (12 November 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

481/91

Judges

Harms, Botha, E M Grosskopf, Milne, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the proposed amendment to the patent specification, specifically the introduction of insert A into claim 21 and its dependent claims, did not serve to distinguish the claims from the prior art disclosed in the Pulles paper. The court found that insert A was not an essential integer of the invention as described in the specification, and its inclusion was a stratagem rather than a substantive limitation. The patentee was bound by its admissions that claims 21 to 25 were only entitled to the priority date of the complete specification, making them anticipat…

Source excerpt

• Patent Amendment
• Priority Date
• Novelty
• Anticipation
• Co Inventorship
• Fair Basis

Sappi Fine Papers (Pty) Ltd. v ICI Canada Incorporated (519/89)

Sappi Fine Papers (Pty) Ltd. v ICI Canada Incorporated (519/89) [1992] ZASCA 58; 1992 (3) SA 306 (AD); (30 March 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

519/89

Judges

Corbett, E M Grosskopf, Nestadt, Vivier, Nicholas

The court upheld patent infringement and rejected invalidity challenges, holding that the patent was to be read purposively and that the effective priority date defeated anticipation.

• Patent Infringement
• Patent Interpretation
• Material Misrepresentation
• Priority Date
• Novelty
• Revocation