Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd

[2003] FCAFC 29

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Intellectual Property
2. › Patents
3. › Validity
4. › Fair basis
5. › Whether claims fairly based on matter described in specification
6. › Whether claims travel beyond disclosure in specification
7. › Broad claims covering any means of achieving result where specification describes only particular mechanism
8. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 40(3)
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Patents
3. › Validity
4. › Obviousness
5. › Inventive step
6. › Whether identification of invention affects obviousness analysis
7. › Whether stating solution to known problem in broad terms involves inventive step
8. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 7(2), 18(1)
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Patents
3. › Validity
4. › Sufficiency of description
5. › Whether specification describes invention fully
6. › Whether broad claims supported by disclosure of particular embodiment only
7. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 40(2)(a)
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Patents
3. › Construction of specification
4. › Identification of the invention
5. › Whether invention is broad concept or particular mechanism disclosed

Quick Take

Claims that travel beyond the particular mechanism or means disclosed in the specification are not fairly based; broadly expressed claims covering any means of achieving a result lack fair basis where the specification discloses only one particular means.