South Africa Case Law

Regents of the University of California and Others v Eurolab (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024-039643; 2023-108509)

Regents of the University of California and Others v Eurolab (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024-039643; 2023-108509) [2025] ZACCP 1 (25 February 2025)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

2024-039643; 2023-108509

Judge

Le Grange

The court found that section 27 of the Patents Act requires that the applicant must have already acquired the right to apply for the patent from the inventor prior to filing the application. The evidence showed that UC had not acquired such rights from all inventors at the relevant date, as assignments were either executed after the filing date or were not valid due to prior assignments to third parties (HHMI). The argument that an agreement to assign or an ongoing process of acquisition suffices was rejected, as the statutory language and regulatory requirements demand certainty and actual a…

Source excerpt

• Patent Entitlement
• Assignment Of Rights
• Revocation Of Patent
• Pharmaceutical Patents
• Statutory Interpretation

Villa Crop Protection (Pty) Ltd v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (CCT 237/21)

Villa Crop Protection (Pty) Ltd v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (CCT 237/21) [2022] ZACC 42; 2023 (4) BCLR 461 (CC); 2024 (1) SA 331 (CC) (8 December 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 237/21

Judges

Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Mlambo AJ, Theron J, Tshiqi J, Unterhalter AJ

The majority (Unterhalter AJ) held that the Commissioner of Patents erred in law by applying the incorrect standard—the interests of justice—rather than the established permissive principle for amendments to pleadings. The correct test is that amendments should be allowed unless made in bad faith or causing irremediable prejudice. The Commissioner’s reliance on the interests of justice and the anticipated complexity of the enquiry was not a valid basis for refusal. The refusal to allow the amendment implicated Villa Crop’s constitutional right of access to courts, as it prevented the applican…

Source excerpt

• Patent Amendment
• Unclean Hands Doctrine
• Abuse Of Process
• Revocation Of Patent
• Misrepresentation
• Access To Court

Microsoft (SA) Proprietary Limited v You First Mobile (Proprietary) Limited (2020/59577)

Microsoft (SA) Proprietary Limited v You First Mobile (Proprietary) Limited (2020/59577) [2021] ZACCP 2; 2021 BIP 5 (CP) (21 June 2021)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

2020/59577

Judge

Mokose

The court ordered disclosure of foreign patent search reports and security for costs in a patent infringement and revocation dispute.

• Patent Infringement
• Security For Costs
• Search Report Disclosure
• Revocation Of Patent
• Novelty
• Misrepresentation

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

Merck Sharpe Dohme Group v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (20282/2014)

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)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20282/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Theron, Wallis, Petse, Willis

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

• Patent Novelty
• Anticipation
• Enablement
• Selection Patents
• Patents Act 1978
• Revocation Of Patent

Mantella Trading 310 (Pty) Limited v Kusile Mining (Pty) Limited (191/2014)

Mantella Trading 310 (Pty) Limited v Kusile Mining (Pty) Limited (191/2014) [2015] ZASCA 10; 2015 BIP 1 (SCA) (12 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

191/2014

Judges

Navsa, Bosielo, Wallis, Schoeman, Dambuza

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Mantella’s patent, finding Kusile’s underground mine barrier infringed and that the patent was not obvious or unclear.

• Patent Infringement
• Inventive Step
• Clarity Of Specification
• Revocation Of Patent
• Combination Invention
• Patent-infringement

Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharo Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975)

Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharo Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975) [2014] ZACCP 5; 2014 BIP 27 (CP) (11 March 2014)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

1998/10975

Judge

Teffo

The court revoked a South African patent after finding claims 1 to 29 were anticipated by an earlier patent and lacked novelty under the Patents Act.

• Patent Novelty
• Anticipation
• Inventive Step
• Interpretation Of Claims
• Expert Evidence
• Revocation Of Patent

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (742/10)

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and Others (742/10) [2011] ZASCA 123; 2011 BIP 12 (CP); [2011] 4 All SA 221 (SCA) (7 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

742/10

Judges

Harms, Ponnan, Snyders, Malan, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal allowed Ausplow to amend its patent specification, holding the amended claims were not shown to be obvious or otherwise invalid.

• Patent Amendment
• Inventive Step
• Obviousness
• Revocation Of Patent
• Claim Construction
• Patent-amendment

SK-2000 Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v SGA Trading CC (2002/6713)

SK-2000 Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v SGA Trading CC (2002/6713) [2011] ZACCP 1; 2011 BIP 4 (CP) (21 January 2011)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

2002/6713

Judge

P.Z. Ebersohn

Patent infringement and revocation dispute referred to oral evidence because the court could not resolve the factual issues on affidavit alone.

• Patent Infringement
• Revocation Of Patent
• Joinder Of Parties
• Oral Evidence Procedure
• Patent-infringement
• Patent-revocation

Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd (278/07)

Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd (278/07) [2008] ZASCA 46; 2008 BIP 14 (SCA) (31 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

278/07

Judges

Streicher, Nugent, Heher, Hurt, Snyders

The Supreme Court of Appeal revoked a patent for seeding machinery, holding that the remaining claimed feature was obvious and involved no inventive step.

• Patent Infringement
• Inventive Step
• Novelty
• Revocation Of Patent
• State Of The Art
• Patent-revocation