Helen Macpherson

R F Industries Pty Ltd v Mine Site Technologies Pty Ltd [2024] APO 16 provides a good example of the usefulness of re-examination and opposition to challenge a granted patent.

Vald Pty Ltd sued KangaTech Pty Ltd for patent infringement and Kanga cross-claimed alleging that Vald’s patent is invalid on the basis of lack of support, lack of sufficiency and lack of inventive step.

Justice Rofe has delivered a further supplementary decision in the dispute between Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc (Boehringer) and Zoetis Services LLC (Zoetis) in relation to three Zoetis vaccine patent applications. Her Honour has now held the last remaining valid claim to be invalid for failure to disclose the best method of performing the claimed invention.

The Full Federal Court has overturned the primary judge’s decision on construction and infringement (with respect to PinForce version 3) but upheld the primary judge’s decision on best method, in the latest case to be heard and decided in the long-running patent disputes between arch rivals in the field of carpark overstay detection.

In a decision handed down on 2 April 2024 by the Full Federal Court, H.A.S Real Estate (H.A.S) has failed in its application for indemnity costs. The Court’s unanimous judgment by Justices Yates, Markovic and Kennett emphasises the critical importance of ensuring that an offer of compromise aligns with the orders and remedies which a party can receive through the court process.

MMD has been unsuccessful again in their infringement suit against Camco Engineering and also in their allegation that Camco contravened the Australian Consumer Law.

On 8 March 2024, Justice Burley of the Federal Court issued the latest in a series of decisions relating to the patent-eligibility of Aristocrat’s electronic gaming machine (EGM) patents. Unfortunately it does not resolve the legal uncertainty created by the High Court’s split decision on the matter in 2022. What next?

On 5 March 2024, the Australian Patent Office (APO) issued its decision in the opposition filed by Clearview Towing Mirrors Pty Ltd in respect of Australian patent application AU2020281026 (Opposed Application). Clearview had opposed the grant of the Opposed Application on the grounds of inventive step, novelty, sufficiency, support and clarity.

The Federal Court’s second patent decision of 2024 is a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court relating to one of several long-running patent disputes in the field of carpark overstay detection.   In March 2023, Justice Besanko upheld the validity of two patents owned by Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd (VMS), both entitled ‘Method, apparatus and system for parking overstay detection’. 

In the first Federal Court patent decision handed down in 2024, MSA 4×4 Accessories Pty Ltd failed to establish infringement by Clearview Towing Mirrors Pty Ltd of MSA’s patent to a mountable storage device, commonly used in off-road and trade vehicles. 

Zoetis Services LLC opposed two Australian patent applications (one standard and one innovation patent application) in the name of Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH. The applications claim a method of treating heart failure due to asymptomatic myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) in a patient (including a dog) by administering pimobendan (also known as Vetmedin®).