Airco Fasteners Pty Ltd v Illinois Tool Works Inc [2023] FCAFC 7
The Full Federal Court dismissed an appeal which was the first Intellectual Property judicial decision for 2023. In Airco Fasteners Pty Ltd v Illinois Tool Works Inc¹, the Applicant (Airco Fasteners) applied for leave to appeal the decision of the trial judge which found that the Applicant had infringed the Respondent’s (Illinois Tools Works) patent pertaining to combustion tool fuel cells. The matter raised the issue of patent specification construction, and that expert evidence cannot interfere with a court’s construction of terms in a patent specification.
Nufarm Australia Ltd v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 109
Nufarm Australia Ltd v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 109¹ appealed a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, pertaining to the granting of a time extension under section 223 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).² The case concerned the ceasing of a standard patent as a result of failure to pay the renewal fee arising from errors or omissions from on the part of the Applicant (Advanta Seed Pty Ltd).
Commissioner of Patents v Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62
A decision has been overturned by the Full Federal Court of Australia in relation to artificial intelligence (AI) being regarded as an ‘inventor.’¹ The case raises policy questions concerning the extent to which AI may claim title as ‘inventor’ as equally as a natural person. It was found, however, that the title under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (‘Patents Act’) is only applicable to the latter.²
Vector Corrosion Technologies Ltd v E-Chem Technologies [2022] FCA 188
In Vector Corrosion Technologies Ltd v E-Chem Technologies [2022] FCA 188,¹ the Federal Court of Australia considered the issue of entitlement and, in particular, whether Vector Corrosion Technologies Ltd (Vector) was entitled to the grant of a patent in view of section 15(1)(c) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).²
Generic Partners Pty Ltd v Neurim Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2022] APO 2
This Australian Patent Office (‘APO’) decision relates to the granting of a request filed by Neurim Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Neurim) for an extension of time to file a complete patent application to take advantage of the grace period provisions set out in section 24(1)(b) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act),¹ which was unsuccessfully opposed by Generic Partners Pty Ltd (Generic).
Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 224
In a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, the meaning of ‘inventive concept’ was considered in the context of entitlement to grant. It was held that an individual providing commercial stimulus to develop an invention is not entitled to the grant of a Patent and such activities do not equate to an inventive concept.
Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (No 3) [2021] FCAFC 223
In Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (No 3) [2021] FCAFC 223 (‘Repipe 3’)¹, the validity of amendment applications filed by Repipe in respect of two innovation patents was considered by the Full Federal Court. The Full Court accepted the Commissioner’s arguments dismissing the First Amendment Application, and refused leave to amend in respect of Repipe’s Second Amendment Application². The amendments proposed by Repipe were considered to fail to comply with the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)³ based on the findings held within Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (No 1) [2019] FCA 1956 (‘Repipe 1’).⁴
Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] 286 FCR 572
This High Court decision is an appeal from a decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in relation to whether Aristocrat’s claim to a system and method of gaming implemented on a computing device should be considered a ‘manner of manufacture’ within the meaning of section 18(1A) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).¹
Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 65
A grade period which allows public disclosures to be made regarding inventions without invalidating same is available to patentees under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)¹. The Full Federal Court in Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd² confirmed that the patents under consideration were invalid due to non-confidential disclosures made by the inventor.
Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879
In the Federal Court decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 (‘Thaler’),¹ Justice Beach held that in accordance with Australian Patent Law, artificial intelligence can be considered an inventor.
