Tag: Currently browsing "Joe Mok"
Blake Dawson - Patent claim interpretation by reference to dependent claims
Joe Mok and David Clark of Blake Dawson report on Termite Tite (NZ) No 2 Limited v Term-Seal (Aust) Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1493, in which the Federal Court considered whether it is permissible to interpret a claim for a patent by reference to its dependent claim. The Court also re-affirmed the strict conditions under which prior art may be admitted when invalidating a patent.
According to Joe Mok and David Clark, dependent claims may be used to help construe claims on which they depend, but should not limit the scope of these inherently broader claims. Patentees can be reassured by this decision that the scope of their monopoly as broadly defined by the independent claims is still maintained whether or not dependent claims are included. The decision should also be welcomed by patentees as it demonstrates that prior art can only be admitted under strict conditions when invalidating a patent.
Blake Dawson - Patent claim interpretation by reference to dependent claims
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 12 Mar 2008 / 09:42 PM
- Category:
- Patents
Contributory patent infringement considered
Joe Mok, Stephanie Patterson and David Clark of Blake Dawson report on Collins v Northern Territory [2007] FCAFC 152 and highlight the alternative cause of action for contributory infringement when it is difficult or impractical to take action against a direct infringer:
- By majority, the Court decided that the grant of a licence can amount to supply, within the meaning of section 117. Of course, whether a particular licence will amount to supply will depend on the terms of that licence.
- The majority of the Court has also provided guidance on the meaning of staple commercial product. All the judges on appeal noted that, prior to this case, there was virtually no authority on the meaning of this phrase. From the judgments of the four judges who considered the issue in this case, it seems that the relevant considerations will be, first, whether the product has multiple uses and secondly, how readily available the product is.
- The Collins decision highlights the alternative cause of action for contributory infringement when it is difficult or impractical to take action against a direct infringer. For example, it may be more cost effective for a patentee to sue a supplier (rather than multiple end users) where a product is supplied for what later will constitute an infringing use.
Link to Contributory patent infringement considered
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 05 Dec 2007 / 03:00 PM
- Category:
- Patents