ipwars.com

Jacobson J has found that Bluescope’s “Smartascreen” metal fencing panel infringed Gram Engineering’s Registered Design No. AU 121344 for a fencing panel as an obvious imitation. Perhaps the most interesting finding, however, is why the Smartascreen was not a fraudulent imitation.

vs

Smartascreen

Gram’s design was registered in 1994, so this is an “old Act” case (invalidity here and infringement here). [1] At the time, it was the first fence panel to feature a symmetrical design: looking the same no matter which side of the fence it was viewed from and, as a result, it was a roaring success capturing some 40% of the market. One interesting aspect of the case is that Bluescope’s Smartascreen product was introduced in 2002. Although Gram Engineering knew about it from around its introduction, it did not commence infringement proceedings until 2011 – after the registered design had expired in 2010.

Bluescope’s attack on validity failed. [2] First, the prior art on which Bluescope relied were for roofing or siding panels, not fence panels, and so not relevant articles. Moreover, the prior art and the registered design had the same general “z-shape”, but were intended to be used horizontally (“weatherboarding) rather than vertically and none had the same combination of 6 panels with the same proportions and angles as the registered design. Hence, while some features may have been present in some of the prior art, none of the prior art included all the features and the registered design looked distinctively different.

Jacobson J then found that the Smartascreen was an obvious imitation: the dominant feature was the same sawtooth look with the (unique) 6 panel frame in the same proportions and with the same angle.

Fraudulent imitation

On this question, Jacobson J found that Bluescope:

• knew that the design was registered;
• knew that Gram had achieved runaway commercial success
• was trying to design a “Gram lookalike”
• had come up with a number of different symmetrical designs which were different to Gram’s design
• and had adopted a standard panel size of 762mm (which matched Gram’s physical embodiement) instead of the more typical 820mm panel size.

In these circumstances and given his Honour’s finding of striking similarity, Gram Engineering argued it was inconceivable Bluescope had not copied Gram’s design and so a finding of fraudulent imitation should follow.

However, Jacobson J considered that fraudulent imitation required a finding that Bluescope’s design had been deliberately copied from the registered design. This may prove to be a considerable narrowing of the requirement in Polyaire that the accused product (at [17]) be based on or derived from the registered design or (at [19]) make use of the registered design.[3] It was, however, decisive. His Honour was not prepared to find that either of the key designers who came forward did deliberately copy. It was here that Gram Engineering’s delay in bringing proceedings came back to haunt it. As his Honour explained at [382]:

It is a conclusion which I have reached with some reservation because the striking similarities to which I referred above were not satisfactorily explained in Bluescope’s evidence. I have no doubt that the drawing of 17 November 2000 was designed to look something like the Gram product. It was, as Gram submitted, designed with an eye to the GramLine sheet. However, it is plain that Mr Field was involved in the process. This appears from the concluding remarks of his memo of 15 November 2000. Ultimately, it is his absence from the witness box which precludes me from reaching the view that the process of designing a Gram lookalike was one which entailed copying the Gram design.

The Mr Field in question was unable to give evidence at this stage in view of his advanced age (being retired) and illness.

If his Honour had been prepared otherwise to find fraudulent imitation, however, the fact that it had obtained advice that its product did not infringe the registered design would not have saved it.

Gram Engineering Pty Ltd v Bluescope Steel Ltd [2013] FCA 508

Share on Facebook

The Full Court has partially allowed an appeal from Foster J’s decision to order Knott Investments to stop using the Winnebago trade marks for “campers” or RVs not made by Winnebago. As a result, Knott can continue to use “Winnebago” if it can make it clear it is not associated with the Winnebago company.

Some facts

From about 1959, Winnebago had been making and selling its RVs under that brand name in the USA and eventually other countries including the UK and Canada, but not Australia.

Winnebago logo

In the early 1960s, Binns became aware of the Winnebago name and logo while travelling around the USA. In 1978, Binns and his wife started manufacturing and selling their own RVs in Australia under the name “Winnebago” and using the Winnebago logo. In 1982, they incorporated Knott which then took over running their business.

The Winnebago company discovered what Knott was up to by 1985. However, the Winnebago company did nothing about this until 1992 when the parties entered into a “settlement” agreement. Following this, Knott kept making and selling its own Winnebago brand RVs and registered the Winnebago logo as trade marks. Winnebago itself did nothing further until 2010, when it wished to enter the market in Australia and started proceedings alleging misleading or deceptive conduct, passing off and seeking revocation of Knott’s trade mark registration for Winnebago and the logo.

When do you test whether conduct is misleading or deceptive

The Full Court allowed Knott’s appeal insofar as it related to when Knott’s conduct had to be tested as misleading or deceptive. Foster J held this was in 1982 when Knott was recorded in the Register of Business Names as having commenced running the business, there being no formal documentation of a transfer of the business. The Full Court, however, considered that Knott was plainly the successor in title to the Binns’ business and so the relevant time was 1978, when the Binns started up.

This is important because the Full Court unanimously considered the relevant time to assess whether conduct is misleading or deceptive under s 52 of the TPA (as it was) and s 18 of the ACL (as it now is) is the date when the “infringer’s” conduct started, not some later date.

As it turned out, however, this did not help Knott much as the Full Court considered the evidence clearly established Winnebago had a “spillover” reputation in Australia in 1978 even though it had not traded in Australia at that point.[1] Therefore, Knott (and the Binns’) conduct was likely to mislead or deceive.

Estoppel, laches, acquiescance or delay

The issue that loomed large in the Full Court’s eyes was Winnebago’s delay in bringing proceedings to enforce its rights – 25 years after it first learned of Knott’s activities and 18 years after the “settlement” agreement. Over that period of time, Knott had built up its own substantial reputation in “Winnebago” in vehicles of its own manufacture.[2]

First, the Full Court agreed with Foster J that the “settelment” agreement did not authorise or concede any rights to use “Winnebago” to Knott. Clause 6 provided:

This Agreement does not address, impact upon, or relate in any way, manner or form to the use or ownership of the [Winnebago marks] in Australia or to any rights relating to the [Winnebago marks] based on reputation or use under any statute or at common law in Australia. By entering into this Agreement, Winnebago does not expressly or impliedly acknowledge that Australian Company has any rights of any nature whatsoever to the [Winnebago marks] in Australia. To the extent not expressed in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be without prejudice to the rights of Winnebago and Winnebago expressly reserves all of its legal rights.

Knott argued, however, that the 18 year delay in bringing proceedings meant it was unjust to permit Winnebago to bring proceedings now. Allsop J despatched this argument for six:

First, there was no clear representation, arising either out of the Settlement Agreement or from the conduct. The terms of the agreement, in their context, contained a degree of commercial ambiguity. The terms, however, of cl 6 could leave no doubt in Mr Binns’ mind that any practical confidence in him that Winnebago was not going to sue him was not based on any right conceded by Winnebago. He proceeded at his own risk. The finding by the primary judge at [155] of the reasons (not specifically challenged) that Mr Binns knew there was a risk of having to rebrand his product if Winnebago entered the market is also fatal to the submission. (emphasis supplied)

Allsop CJ and Jagot J rejected Knott’s arguments based on laches, acquiescance and delay both for similar reasons and because Knott had expressly disclaimed them at trial.

Notwithstanding this, the Full Court considered that Foster J’s order that Knott be restrained from using the Winnebago trade marks was unjust. Even though Knott (or, really, Binns) had adopted the Winnebago trade marks to take advantage of the Winnebago company’s reputation and there was evidence that some members of the public had been misled, nonetheless, Knott had over decades built up its own substantial, independent reputation. Instead, therefore, the injunction should only prohibit use which did not appropriately disclaim any trade association with the Winnebago company. At [67], Allsop CJ explained:

This limitation of relief can be seen to reflect not only the balancing of the respective interests of Knott and Winnebago in the reputation developed by Knott’s expenditure, in the context of Winnebago’s extraordinary (and informed) delay, but also the erosion of the reputation of Winnebago ….

and

The evidence reveals sufficient to conclude that at least some of Knott’s reputation in the use of the name and marks was the development of its goodwill and reputation; that not all of the development of its business involved the taking advantage of Winnebago’s reputation in Australia. In normal circumstances, this would not matter; it would be something that the party passing off would have to accept as a consequence of its wrongdoing. Here, however, Winnebago has contributed to this by standing by, informed of the position, for 25 years while Knott expended money and built a business, part at least of which was its own reputation. (emphasis supplied)

The disclaimer or dissassociation had to be clear on the vehicles Knott made in future as well as in its advertising and promotional material.

The third member of the Court, Cowdroy J, did not explicitly reject the laches or acquiescance defence, but agreed in the approach of Allsop CJ saying at [106]:

the Court considers that the granting of relief to completely restrain the appellants from the use of the Winnebago marks to be unreasonable in light of the substantial delay by Winnebago.

Finally, the Full Court upheld Foster J’s order to cancel Knott’s registration of the Winnebago trade marks. Knott had registered these in direct contravention of the terms of the “settlement” agreement.

Some thoughts

In 1992, a representative of the Winnebago company had written to its then Australian lawyers explaining:

… While we are obviously interested in persuading or compelling Mr Binns to cease using the subject marks in Australia, I really do not think that we can justify any additional expense. We are not selling our products there nor do we have any plans to do so. There has in the past been some indication that Mr Binns was experiencing some financial duress and perhaps with any luck he will go broke. In any event, at least for the time being, I think we will just continue to monitor this situation … [3]

No doubt, the sentiments will resonate with everyone advising a foreign brand owner in Australia. The Full Court’s approach may provide a warning. The terms of the “settlement” agreement were sufficiently limited to preserve the Winnebago company’s right to enter the market and object to misrepresentation of association, but failure to enforce its rights promptly has left it encumbered with a competing, independent user of its brand. On the other hand, Knott did not bring matters to a head in negotiating the “settlement” agreement and finds itself constrained. As Allsop CJ said, it ran the risk. How the disclaimer should be effected is unclear, but there are indications in Allsop CJ’s reasons that Knott has been able effectively to dissociate its business from the Winnebago company, while still using the Winnebago trade marks, since 2003.

Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc [2013] FCAFC 59

Share on Facebook

Some 5 years after it went hunting, Tamawood[1] has successfully sued Habitare (now with administrators and receivers and managers appointed) for infringing copyright in house plans.

Copyright in some plans was infringed (Torrington v Duplex 1 & Duplex B); but not in others (Conondale / Dunkeld v Duplex 2 & Duplex A).

One point of interest: Habitare commissioned Tamawood to develop plans for 2 new houses for it. These plans were submitted to the Brisbane City Council to obtain development approvals. The relationship with Tamawood broke down, however, and Habitare continued to use the plans. Collier J found that the “usual” (i.e. Beck v Montana)[2] implied licence did not apply here. It did not apply because Tamawood did not get paid the “usual” fee for doing the job: rather, it agreed to prepare the drawings at no cost on the basis that it would build the houses once development approval had been obtained. Once the deal fell through and Habitare decided not to proceed with Tamawood as the builder, therefore, its rights to use the plans terminated.

Continuing with the licensing theme, Mondo (which Habitare eventually used to design the houses in dispute) did infringe copyright by creating the infringing plans Duplex 1 and Duplex B plans. It did not infringe Tamawood’s copyright, however, when it downloaded the Torrington plans from Tamawood’s website. Tamawood made the plans available on its website for the whole world to see and download so Collier J considered Mondo’s purpose in using the downloaded plans to design competing houses was not relevant.[3]

(Mondo did succeed in its cross-claim against Habitare and 2 of its principals for misleading or deceptive conduct: they told Mondo that the copyright issues with Tamawood had been sorted out or resolved.)

A second point of interest is that the builder of Habitare’s infringing houses, Bloomer Constructions, successfully made out the “innocent infringer” defence provided by s 115(3). Cases where this defence has been relied on successfully are as rare as the proverbial hen’s teeth. It seems to have been because the builder became involved very late in the day: it had no knowledge of Tamawood’s involvement in the earlier stages and the plans it was provided with had Mondo’s name or title block.

Finally, a curiosity: the reasoning on authorisation liability manages not to refer to Roadshow v iiNet at all, but refers extensively to University of NSW v Moorhouse. In the event, Habitare apparently conceded it would be liable for authorising the infringements of the others. Two of its principal officers, Mr Peter O’Mara and a David Johnson, managed to escape liability, however. While they were heavily involved in the business, their involvement was mainly on the finance side rather than sales and marketing. Collier J seems to have found that, within Habitare, responsibility for the conduct that infringed had devolved on to 2 other officers, Shane O’Mara – Peter O’Mara’s son – and a Mr Speer. Her Honour also considered that, by engaging Mondo as architects, Peter O’Mara and Johnson took “reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the doing of the infringing act”.[4]

Tamawood Limited v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No 3) [2013] FCA 410

Share on Facebook

Most of the substantive Raising the Bar amendments came into force today.

Amongst other things, schedule 1 of the Raising the Bar Act introduced a raft of changes designed to raise the threshold of patentability – i.e., make it harder to get a patent.

These include:

• introducing the really diligent searcher of prior art for obviousness via changes to s 7(3)[1] so that it will be permissible to combine any piece of prior art with common general knowledge (if the skilled addressee could reasonably be expected to combine the two), not just those elements of the prior art that the skilled addressee could be reasonably expected to have found;
• a new concept of utility based on the US approach; and
• doing away with the ’old’[2] fair basis requirement in s 40 as interpreted by the High Court in that Lockwood ruling.

Instead of fair basing, a patent will be required by s 40(2) to disclose:

(a) the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art; and

(aa) the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention; and …

and s 40(3) will read:[3]

“The claim or claims must be clear and succinct and [fairly based on the matter described] supported by matter disclosed in the specification.”

Provisional specifications will have to meet the requirements set out above in s 40(2)(a) also.

This is intended to introduce into Australian law the requirements under the UK’s 1977 Act: s 72(1)(c).

The Court of Appeal[4] provides an interesting example of how these new rules should work in it Merial ruling. Merial had (at least) 2 patents relating to its Frontline brand of flea-treatment products. One of these, the 881 patent survived the attack on sufficiency of description, but the other, the 564 patent did not.

Kitchin LJ identified the crucial difference between the 2 patents at [85] – [86]:

…. This was a matter to which the judge expressly referred at [77]:

”77. In contrast to the examples in 881, the examples of 564 simply specify different concentrations of the active ingredients. The examples do not contain any formulation details beyond saying that there should be present a crystallisation inhibitor, an organic solvent and an organic co-solvent.”

This then was the critical difference between the disclosures of the two patents. Omnipharm failed to establish that the practical guidance given by the examples of the 881 patent was not sufficient to enable the skilled team to work across the breadth of the claims. But the 564 patent claimed a combination of actives and did so without any worked examples at all. It provided no real practical assistance over and above the common general knowledge.

Kitchin LJ accepted Merial’s argument that the UK Act did not impose an obligation to include examples of the way the claimed invention worked. However, his Lordship considered that was not why the trial judge, Floyd J, upheld the attack. Rather, the description was insufficient because it did not give sufficient guidance about which ingredients to choose and in what proportions. So, Kitchin LJ explained at [89]:

I reject these submissions. I think it is clear from [151] – [152] that the judge did not find that the absence of any detailed examples was, in itself, fatal to the sufficiency of the 564 patent. What rendered it insufficient, in his view, was the absence of proper exemplification of a formulation of the invention in the context of a specification which was generally inadequate to guide the skilled person to success and provided no real practical assistance beyond the teaching of the prior art and the common general knowledge. The specification contains no more than a very broad indication of the components of the formulation and, as the judge found, it is not a sufficient description to enable the skilled person to arrive at formulations across the breadth of the claims without undue effort.

One illustration of the problem with the 564 patent was set out earlier at [83]:

The disclosure in relation to solvents and co-solvents is something the judge also had well in mind, as is clear from [66]-[67]. Here he referred to the dielectric constant ranges which the solvent and co-solvent must meet, and that the co-solvent must have a boiling point below 100°C. He also referred to the lists of suitable solvents and co-solvents. This information would not, however, be of any practical use to the formulator who, as Dr Walters explained, would have to fall back on his general knowledge of solvents and techniques for enhancing spreading and skin penetration in order to decide on the appropriate solvent system to use.

Neither the Court of Appeal nor Floyd J at first instance set out at length the legal principles underlying insufficiency for these purposes. However, Floyd J had earlier set out his understanding of ‘classical insufficiency’, Biogen insufficiency and ‘insufficiency through ambiguity’ at [361] – [454] in Zipher.

Omnipharm Ltd v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 2 via IPKat

ps.: those who attended David Brennan’s talk last year will find his ‘Monash paper’ in 38(1) Monash University Law Review 78.

Share on Facebook

The Commonwealth Government’s Pharmaceutical Patents Review has published a draft report.

The draft Report is some 200 or so pages long; contains 4 draft findings and 15 draft recommendations (although recommendation 5 relating to the extension of term regime proposes 2 different alternatives).

There appears to be considerable, fascinating data reported. The scope and detail of the draft report will plainly require much further consideration.

At the policy level, the draft report considers there has been a significant failure of co-ordination between the various regulatory bodies that deal with issues relating to pharmaceuticals and patent protections:

Draft recommendation 10.1: The Government should establish a non-statutory Pharmaceutical System Coordinating Committee (PSCC) that reports to Parliament on an annual basis on the success and effectiveness of the patent, marketing approval and PBS systems, particularly where these interface. The PSCC should ensure there is sufficient engagement and coordination between the relevant agencies and take account of costs to government, efficiency of registration and approval processes and respond to issues raised by industry. The PSCC should comprise senior officials from at least DIICCSRTE, IP Australia, DoHA (Pharmaceutical Benefits Division and TGA), DFAT, Finance and Treasury (as chair).

This appears to reflect a general concern with the need for greater policy and practical concern throughout the report. See e.g. draft recommendation 7.2 (calling for an external (to IP Australia) patent oversight committee) and draft recommendation 3.2.

Recommendation 6.1 proposes retaining extension of term just for pharmaceutical products and not extending it to methods of use or manufacture. The bipolar recommendations 5.1 and 5.2, however, explore different ways of prescribing the term of the extension.

Other topics addressed in the draft report include: the impact of international agreements on Australia’s welfare, evergreening and follow-on patents, data protection

Comments on the draft report are required to be submitted by 30 April 2013.

Share on Facebook

Big week for parallel imports last week:

(1) the US Supreme Court declared US law applies a doctrine of international exhaustion for copyright material

(2) Adobe, Apple and Microsoft fronted the Australian Parliament to explain why digital “things” cost so much more in Australia than elsewhere (i.e., the USA).

Apple’s defence said, amongst other things, it was the price it had to pay to the owners of Australian copyright – lovely chart here. Other reports (with more analysis) here and here (which may be challenges Apple’s explanation a bit for its own products).

That didn’t really work as an explanation for Adobe, which gets lambasted here.

Perhaps, just maybe, treating digital downloads as a single global market might lead to some lowering of prices, but the beauty of digital delivery (from the content owner’s perspective) is that you can set your price and the customer can buy or not.

Is there a link between (1) and (2)?

In his analysis, Prof. Goldman sets out a number of reasons why he thinks Kirtsaeng, while it may provide some good news in terms of lower prices, will have only a short term effect.

(I suppose we can trumpet the fact that our technological protection measure protections don’t extend to protecting region coding (here and here), although I do wonder how one would prove that was the purpose of the (ac)tpm.)

Share on Facebook

The 1709 Blog has a report about the operation of the resale royalty right scheme (here or here) given by the (then) Minister for the Arts to the Senate.

Some highlights:

• since the scheme started in 2011, CAL (the official collecting agency) has paid out just over $805,000
• 150 “rights holders” (I guess that would be painters or their heirs) have received the top 600 payments which totalled just under $300,000
• 59% of the payments went to indigenous artists; of which there were 301 payments of the top 600 payments going to 91 “right holders”

Share on Facebook

While the European Commission is trying to reduce the number of licensors you have to deal with (and so reduce transaction costs), the Australian legislation as interpreted by the courts is causing them to proliferate:

IPKat on Max Planck comments on draft directive on collective rights management

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited v Commercial Radio Australia Limited [2013] FCAFC 11

Yes, I know the EU is grappling with territorial issues and not, or not just, subject matter issues and, if someone were trying to set up an umbrella licence in Australia, it would be important to know who had what rights to include, but …

Share on Facebook

Nicholas J has ruled that Myriad’s patent for isolated gene sequences relating to BRCA1 are patentable subject matter for the purposes of Australia’s Patents Act 1990.

Claim 1 of the Patent (No. 686004 entitled “In vivo mutations and polymorphisms in the 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene”) is for:

An isolated nucleic acid coding for a mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide, said nucleic acid containing in comparison to the BRCA1 polypeptide encoding sequence set forth in SEQ.ID No:l one or more mutations or polymorphisms selected from the mutations set forth in Tables 12, 12A and 14 and the polymorphisms set forth in Tables 18 and 19.

At [70], Nicholas J explained the scope of this claim:

Claim 1 extends to isolated DNA, RNA and cDNA that has a BRCA1 polypeptide encoding sequence as shown in SEQ ID No.1 with one or more of the mutations or polymorphisms specified in the relevant tables.

To qualify as patentable subject matter in Australia s 18(1)(a) prescribes that the claimed invention must be a “manner of manufacture”.

This term, much to the chagrin of modernising law reformers, derives from s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies 1623. In the “watershed” NRDC ruling in 1959, Dixon CJ, Kitto and Windeyer JJ declared that the meaning of “manner of manufacture” is not to be derived as a matter of mere etymology. Rather it poses a question:

“Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?”

and in answering that question, it must be recognised that the concept has a “broad sweep” intended to encourage developments that are by their nature unpredictable. Hence, their Honours indicated the processes at issue in that case were patentable subject matter because they led to, or resulted in, an artificially created state of affairs, that had some discernible effect, which had economic significance.  A very teleological approach from the supposed patron saints of strict legalism!

Nicholas J found that the isolated gene sequences claimed in Myriad’s patent were an artificially created state of affairs having economic significance.

His Honour at [105] rejected Myriad’s first line of defence claiming that there was a change in chemical structure simply by the process of isolating the gene sequence. Rather, more generally, the nucleic acid or gene sequence in its isolated form was sufficient to qualify as an artificially created state of affairs:

First, the concept of patentable subject matter is expressed in very expansive language.

Secondly, at [108] the nucleic acid did not exist in isolated form in the cell:

in the absence of human intervention, naturally occurring nucleic acid does not exist outside the cell, and “isolated” nucleic acid does not exist inside the cell. Isolated nucleic acid is the product of human intervention involving the extraction and purification of the nucleic acid found in the cell. Extraction of nucleic acid requires human intervention that necessarily results in the rupture of the cell membrane and the physical destruction of the cell itself. And purification of the extracted nucleic acid requires human intervention that results in the removal of other materials which were also originally present in the cell. It is only after both these steps are performed that the extracted and purified product may be properly described as “isolated” in the sense that word is used in the disputed claims.

Thirdly, at [109] isolating the substance could require “immense research and intellectual effort”.

In that case, it was only as a result of an intensive research effort that the isolated micro-organism in question could be made available for use in the manufacture of the new antibiotic. It was fortuitous for the patentee that it was its employees who were first to isolate the new micro-organism and first to deploy it in the manufacture of the new drug. That will not always be so. It would lead to very odd results if a person whose skill and effort culminated in the isolation of a micro-organism (a fortiori, an isolated DNA sequence) could not be independently rewarded by the grant of a patent because the isolated micro-organism, no matter how practically useful or economically significant, was held to be inherently non-patentable. In my view it would be a mistake, and inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, not to give full effect in such situations to the broad language used by the High Court in NRDC.

His Honour had earlier noted at [75] that, while the isolated substances contained genetic information, the patent did not claim information per se, rather, it was for a substance. Furthermore, at [76] because the claim was limited to the gene sequences in isolated form, it did not cover or extend to the naturally occurring DNA or RNA.

Nicholas J also noted that it was longstanding practice for the Commissioner to grant patents over gene sequences. Both ACIP (pdf) and the ALRC had recommended that this not be changed. The Government had announced (pdf) it accepted those recommendations and Parliament had implemented a different range of measures through the Raising the Bar Act, especially by introducing an explicit experimental use exception in s 119 C and the extension of the usefulness requirement by the introduction of new s 7A which was likely to affect the patentability of ESTs or expressed sequence tags.

Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Genetics Inc [2013] FCA 65

Share on Facebook

Emmett J has dismissed Research Associates’ appeal from the Commissioner’s rejection of an attempt to patent a method for calculating an Index for using in financial investing.

Claim 1 was for:

A computer-implemented method for generating an index, the method including steps of:

(a) accessing data relating to a plurality of assets;

(b) processing the data thereby to identify a selection of the assets for inclusion in the index based on an objective measure of scale other than share price, market capitalization and any combination thereof;

(c) accessing a weighting function configured to weight the selected assets;

(d) applying the weighting function, thereby to assign to each of the selected assets a respective weighting, wherein the weighting:

(i) is based on an objective measure of scale other than share price, market capitalization and any combination thereof; and

(ii) is not based on market capitalization weighting, equal weighting, share price weighting and any combination thereof, thereby to generate the index.

Emmett J held that this was not a manner of manufacture as required by s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990.

His Honour appears to have rejected this on a number of bases. First, his Honour appears to have characterised the claim as akin to a mere scheme, abstract idea or mere information and not resulting in a physical effect or physical effect of the right kind:

65. A mere scheme, abstract idea, or mere information, is not, of itself, patentable. Some physical effect is required. Thus, where the representation of a curve, or the representation of Chinese language characters, or the writing of information to a smart card, is produced by a computer, there is a component physically affected or a change in state in a part of a machine, which makes the invention patentable.

66. Research Affiliates accepts that the only physical result generated by the method of the claimed invention is a computer file containing the index. That is because the method is implemented by means of a computer. Research Affiliates places significance on the fact that the result of the claimed method is the generation of the index by a computer.

67. However, the index generated is nothing more than a set of data. The index is simply information: it is a set of numbers. It is no more a manner of manufacture than a bank balance, whether represented as data in a bank’s computer, written on a piece of paper or kept in a person’s memory. While it is true that the index may be stored in the computer’s RAM, or on a memory device, or can be transmitted, that can be said of any data generated by a computer. If that were sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an artificially created state of affairs, any computer-implemented scheme would be patentable, merely by reason of the fact that it happens to be implemented by a computer. (emphasis supplied)

Secondly, in what might be a foreshadowing of the Raising the Bar amendments about to come into force, Emmett J was highly critical of the level of disclosure of how to implement the alleged invention:

68. While the Specification appears to be intended to create the impression of detailed computer implementation, the Specification says almost nothing about how that is to be done. The reliance placed on the Colonial Index embodiment is a good example of what is not in the Specification. The discussion in the Specification provides no substantive detail regarding the implementation of the claimed method. The upshot of the discussion is merely that the method is implemented by a computer, but there is no disclosure of how that is to be done.

….

70. The method of the claimed invention does not involve a specific effect being generated by the computer. The mere use of a computer necessarily carries with it the writing of information into the computer’s memory. There is a stark contrast between a computer-generated curve, or a representation of Chinese characters, or the writing of particular information on a smart card, on the one hand, and the quite unspecific index, on the other. There is no practical application in the method of the claimed invention for the improved use of computers. The effect of the implementation of the method is not to improve the operation of or effect of the use of the computer. There is nothing in the Specification or claim 1 that discloses how to produce the index. Thus, there is nothing in the Specification or claim 1 to indicate:

• how data is accessed in step 1;
• the nature of the processing undertaken in step 2 to identify the selection of assets;
• how the weighting function is accessed in step 3;
• how the relevant measure of scale is chosen in step 4; or
• how the weighting function is applied in step 4 to assign a weighting to each asset.

71. The case propounded by Research Affiliates depends upon the proposition that information of economic significance, once entered into or produced by means of a computer, becomes an economically valuable artificially created state of affairs, and thus patentable. That proposition must be rejected.

Thirdly, Emmett J found that the alleged invention lacked the necessary quality of “newness” or “inventiveness” on the face of the Specification:

72. The implementation of the method of the claimed invention by means of a computer, at the level articulated in claim 1, is no more than the modern equivalent of writing down the index on pieces of paper. On the face of the Specification, there is no patentable invention in the fact that the claimed method is implemented by means of a computer. The Specification asserts a patentable invention, not in the use of the computer, but in the particular series of steps that give rise to the generation of the index. Those steps could readily have been carried out manually. The aspect of computer implementation is nothing more than the use of a computer for a purpose for which it is suitable. That does not confer patentability.

This suggests a considerable broadening of what constitutes the “face of the Specification” as comprehended in, for example, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Faulding‘s attempted reconciliation of Ramset and Mirabella. Emmett J concluded with what might, with respect, be thought to be an unobjectionable proposition:

73. The enquiry into what constitutes a patentable invention is still evolving. It is not to be tied to particular notions of what was understood to be a manufacture at any particular point in time. However, while new developments in technology might be seen to widen the notion of what is patentable, the modern availability of computers as a standard means of implementing arithmetic or computational processes, which could have been implemented manually in the past, does not carry with it any broadening of the concept of a patentable invention.

On this approach, perhaps, the Court, or the Commissioner, could have concluded readily that the alleged invention, as characterised by Emmett J would fail the inventive step requirement in s 18(1)(b)(ii) without resort to the manner of manufacture “threshold”.

Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 71

Dr Summerfield, over at Patentology, explores matters in detail.

Share on Facebook