Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v Tyco Electronics Pty Ltd (includes corrigendum dated 18 October 2002)

(2002) 56 IPR 248; [2002] FCAFC 315

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Patents
2. › Validity
3. › Inventive step
4. › Obviousness
5. › Common general knowledge
6. › Whether AT&T 110 connector formed part of common general knowledge at priority date
7. › Whether combination of wire retention and strain relief in single flexible feature was obvious
8. › Patents Act 1952 (Cth), s 100(1)(e)
9. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 18(1)(b), 138(3)
1. Patents
2. › Validity
3. › Inventive step
4. › Skilled worker
5. › Use of team rather than individual as notional uninventive skilled worker
6. › Interaction between team members' knowledge
1. Patents
2. › Infringement
3. › Construction of claims
4. › Whether alleged infringing product possessed all essential integers of claim
5. › Meaning of 'approximately perpendicular'
6. › Whether tongues at 35 degrees from perpendicular were 'approximately perpendicular'
1. Evidence
2. › Opinion evidence
3. › Expert evidence as to obviousness in patent cases
4. › Whether admissible
5. › Utility of such evidence
6. › Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 76, 79, 80, 135

Quick Take

The Court emphasizes that disclosure at a trade meeting does not automatically establish common general knowledge, and expert witnesses on obviousness should not be provided with the patent or assume the inventive step as given.