Danisco A/S v Novozymes A/S (No 2)

[2011] FCA 282

Federal Court of Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Patents
2. › construction of claims
3. › clarity
4. › claim narrower than specification
5. › meaning of “an enzyme”
6. › meaning of “generated from”
7. › meaning of “functional ingredient”
8. › meaning of “inactivating or denaturing the enzyme”
9. › construction difficult
10. › not render claim invalid
11. › clear construction available
1. Patents
2. › construction of claims
3. › based on language of independent claim, second constituent does not include water
4. › water stated as a second constituent in specification and dependent claim
5. › patentee says reference to water is a “mistake”
6. › whether water can be constituent of independent claim
1. Patents
2. › construction of claims
3. › limitation by result
4. › inactivated or denatured enzyme
5. › standard of inactivation
6. › workable standard
7. › no significant or material amount of active enzyme
1. Patents
2. › invention
3. › relevance of Invention Disclosure Statement to construction of claims
4. › relevance of Invention Disclosure Statement to inventive step
5. › relevance of Invention Disclosure Statement to characterisation of invention