Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 NOVEMBER 2018

Drilling Down The Details

Joshua Teoh explains how a decision of the Federal Court of Australia may be relevant to Malaysian patentees.

MalaysiaIntellectual Property

Joshua Teoh explains how a decision of the Federal Court of Australia may be relevant to Malaysian patentees.

In Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 138, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia affirmed the decision of Justice Jessup sitting as a single judge in the Federal Court of Australia, holding that the claims in Australian Patent No. 744870 entitled "Extension Drilling System" ("'870 Patent") belonging to the Appellant ("Sandvik") were invalid for, among others, failure to comply with the requirement to describe the best known method of performing or carrying out an invention.

The aforesaid requirement is set out in section 40(2)(aa) of Australia's Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ("section 40(2)(aa)") which stipulates that "a complete specification must disclose the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention".

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from