South Africa Case Law

Pasadena Leather Products CC t/a Pasadena Products and Another v Resca and Another (137/2016)

Pasadena Leather Products CC t/a Pasadena Products and Another v Resca and Another (137/2016) [2016] ZASCA 204; 2016 BIP 63 (SCA) (15 December 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

137/2016

Judges

Leach, Swain, Dambuza, Mathopo, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a swivel holster did not infringe a patent for a lockable holster because it lacked the patent’s second camming surface.

• Patent Infringement
• Purposive Construction
• Essential Integers
• Lockable Holster
• Patents Act Interpretation
• Patent-infringement

Vari-Deals 101 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd (503/06)

Vari-Deals 101 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd (503/06) [2007] ZASCA 123; 2008 (3) 447 (SCA); 2007 BIP 69 (SCA) (27 September 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

503/06

Judges

Harms, Nugent, Ponnan, Combrinck, Hurt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants’ teardrop flag products infringed Sunsmart’s patent and registered design and dismissed the appeal.

• Patent Infringement
• Registered Design Infringement
• Anticipation
• Purposive Construction
• Contributory Infringement
• Patent-infringement

Aktiebolaget Hassle and Another v Triomed (Pty) Ltd (63/2002)

Aktiebolaget Hassle and Another v Triomed (Pty) Ltd (63/2002) [2002] ZASCA 103; [2002] 4 All SA 138 (SCA); 2003 (1) SA 155 (SCA) (12 September 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

63/2002

Judges

Nugent, Hefer, Harms, Farlam, Navsa

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a patent claim for an omeprazole preparation was to be read purposively, and that a single-compound subcoating could still infringe.

• Patent Infringement
• Purposive Construction
• Pharmaceutical Patents
• Claim Interpretation
• Patent-infringement
• Claim-interpretation

Nampak Products Ltd and Another v Man-Dirk (Pty) Ltd (162/97)

Nampak Products Ltd and Another v Man-Dirk (Pty) Ltd (162/97) [1999] ZASCA 21; [1999] 2 All SA 543 (A) (26 March 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

162/97

Judges

Vivier, Howie, Schutz, Plewman, Melunsky

The court held that the respondent's product does not infringe the patent because it does not contain a 'second bag' as required by the main claim. The claim language is clear and unambiguous, and the ordinary meaning of 'bag' must be applied. The sleeve used by the respondent is not a second bag but a restraining sleeve, which does not satisfy the claim's requirements. The principle of purposive construction was found to be inapplicable in this case due to the lack of ambiguity or technical complexity in the claim language. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's product was found not…

Source excerpt

• Patent Infringement
• Claim Construction
• Purposive Construction
• Interpretation Of Claims