Two new patent judgments from the Supreme Court of Appeal are available. Both deal with the absence of an inventive step and, although marked unreportable, will no doubt be of interest to practitioners in the field, given the stature of the court. Provisional revocation was granted in both instances, providing the patentee the opportunity to amend the patent. See Buckman Laboratories v Bromine Compounds (655/06) [2008] ZASCA 37 (28 March 2008) and Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd (278/07) [2008] ZASCA 46 (31 March 2008).
ABOUT THE EDITOR
Firi Abibirem, da biara asɛm foforɔ.
Popular Posts
-
Van's Aircraft is a very successful producer of experimental aircraft and aircraft kits based in the US. Their fleet of RVs (as they ar... -
Using RSA as an example, this post makes a case for a more simplified approach to the trade mark infringement test. It recommends that the ... -
INTRODUCTION When a trade mark rights holder (statutory/common law), is estopped, on the way to the forum, or anywhere else, from act... -
South Africa: In the case of Fire Logic (Pty) Ltd (Fire Logic) v Logic Group Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Firelogik (Logic Africa) , the Eastern ... -
Last week I spent time in Botswana for a hearing. It also gave me an opportunity to pilot my first international flight. It’s a wonderful th...
IPKAT APPROVED
1 comments:
Write commentsThis is a remarkable shift from the approach where any and every insignificant difference from the prior art is regarded as an inventive step.
ReplyIts way too early to call it a "sea-change", but in one month the ZASCA has trebled the number of judgments finding inventions to be obvious.