Share
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Threads

IP Whiteboard

Zetco wins patent battle

4 August 2011

On Monday, Justice Bennett held that Zetco’s patent for hot water heater valves was valid, and infringed by Austworld Commodities.

The decision provides useful guidance on what is necessary for an anticipating disclosure.  At paragraph 93, her Honour notes that:

“A person of skill in the art examining a prior art valve may know of a component that equates to a missing integer, or the missing integer may be part of common general knowledge.  However, this does not necessarily mean that the prior art discloses that missing integer and that anticipation has occurred.”

Claim 1 of the patent was for a prefabricated valve, that is, a single unit. After considering the prior art, her Honour held that a prior art valve involving parts that required manual connection would not be sufficient to anticipate the claims of the patent. 

Mallesons acted for Zetco.

Share
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Threads

More Posts From This Author

Those drugs cost how much?? Chemist Warehouse price list misleading– but not for the reasons you might think

29 October 2012
Last Monday the Supreme Court of Queensland held that a price list published by various Chemist Warehouse pharmacies in Cairns, Nerang, Coolangatta and other parts of Queensland was likely to mislead or deceive and therefore contravene clause 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), schedule 2, section 18). 
Read on

No extension for a deliberate decision

23 June 2011
In Carol Almond-Martin v Novo Nordisk Health Care AG [2011] APO 42, the latest section 223 extension of time decision, the Patent Office refused to grant an extension of time of one month because it was unable to identify any error or omission or circumstances beyond the control of the person concerned.
Read on