Buzbee (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Patents 2010 BIP 42 (CP)

Buzbee (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Patents 2010 BIP 42 (CP)

Facts

Buzbee (Pty) Ltd (Buzbee) applied to the Registrar of Patents (the Registrar) for two patents. The Registrar granted the patents, but later revoked them on the grounds that Buzbee had failed to file its counterstatement in time in response to a revocation application filed by a third party.

Buzbee appealed the Registrar's decision to the Cape High Court.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the Registrar was entitled to revoke Buzbee's patents on the grounds that Buzbee had failed to file its counterstatement in time.

Reasons

The Cape High Court held that the Registrar was not entitled to revoke Buzbee's patents on the grounds that Buzbee had failed to file its counterstatement in time. The court found that the Registrar's power to revoke patents was limited to the circumstances specified in the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act). The court also found that the Act did not authorize the Registrar to revoke patents on the grounds that the counterstatement in a revocation application had not been filed in time.

The court found that the Registrar's decision to revoke Buzbee's patents was unreasonable and that it had violated Buzbee's right to a fair hearing. The court also found that the Registrar's decision had caused Buzbee commercial harm.

Conclusion

The court overturned the Registrar's decision and ordered the Registrar to reinstate Buzbee's patents.

Summary

The case of Buzbee (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Patents 2010 BIP 42 (CP) is a landmark case in South African law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the powers of the Registrar of Patents under the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act).

Powers of the Registrar of Patents

The case established that the Registrar of Patents has limited powers to revoke patents. The Registrar can only revoke a patent if it is satisfied that one of the grounds for revocation specified in the Act is present.

Failure to file counterstatement in time

The case established that the failure to file a counterstatement in time in response to a revocation application is not a ground for revoking a patent. The Act does not authorize the Registrar to revoke patents on the grounds that the counterstatement in a revocation application has not been filed in time.

Right to a fair hearing

The case established that the Registrar must give patentees a fair hearing before revoking their patents. This includes giving patentees a reasonable opportunity to file a counterstatement in response to a revocation application.

Commercial harm

The case established that the Registrar can be held liable for commercial harm caused by its unreasonable decisions.

Impact of the Case

The case of Buzbee (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Patents 2010 BIP 42 (CP) has had a significant impact on the law of patents in South Africa. The case has established the limits of the Registrar of Patents' power to revoke patents. The case has also established that the failure to file a counterstatement in time in response to a revocation application is not a ground for revoking a patent. The case has also established that the Registrar must give patentees a fair hearing before revoking their patents and that the Registrar can be held liable for commercial harm caused by its unreasonable decisions.

University of Pretoria v Registrar of Patents 2011 BIP 41 (CP)

University of Pretoria v Registrar of Patents 2011 BIP 41 (CP)

Facts

The University of Pretoria (the University) filed two patent applications with the Registrar of Patents (the Registrar). The Registrar refused to accept the applications on the grounds that they had not been accompanied by the required renewal fees. The University appealed the Registrar's decision to the Cape High Court.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the Registrar had the power to refuse to accept the University's patent applications on the grounds that they had not been accompanied by the required renewal fees.

Reasons

The Cape High Court held that the Registrar did not have the power to refuse to accept the University's patent applications on the grounds that they had not been accompanied by the required renewal fees. The court found that the Registrar's power to refuse to accept patent applications was limited to the circumstances specified in the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act). The court also found that the Act did not authorize the Registrar to refuse to accept patent applications on the grounds that the required renewal fees had not been paid.

Conclusion

The court overturned the Registrar's decision and ordered the Registrar to accept the University's patent applications.

Summary

The case of University of Pretoria v Registrar of Patents 2011 BIP 41 (CP) is a landmark case in South African law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the powers of the Registrar of Patents under the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act).

Powers of the Registrar of Patents

The case established that the Registrar of Patents has limited powers to refuse to accept patent applications. The Registrar can only refuse to accept a patent application if it does not comply with the requirements of the Act.

Payment of renewal fees

The case established that the non-payment of renewal fees is not a ground for refusing to accept a patent application. The Act provides that patent applications can be lapsed if the renewal fees are not paid, but it does not authorize the Registrar to refuse to accept patent applications on the grounds that the renewal fees have not been paid.

Impact of the Case

The case of University of Pretoria v Registrar of Patents 2011 BIP 41 (CP) has had a significant impact on the law of patents in South Africa. The case has established the limits of the Registrar of Patents' power to refuse to accept patent applications. The case has also established that the non-payment of renewal fees is not a ground for refusing to accept a patent application.

Ensign-Bickford (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Others v AECI Explosives & Chemicals Ltd 1998 BIP 271 (SCA)

Ensign-Bickford (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Others v AECI Explosives & Chemicals Ltd 1998 BIP 271 (SCA)

Facts

Ensign-Bickford (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and others (the appellants) were the defendants in two infringement actions brought by AECI Explosives & Chemicals Ltd (the respondent). The respondent alleged that the appellants had infringed its patent for a plastic tube coated with explosive powder on the inner surface.

The appellants raised three grounds of invalidity: novelty, obviousness, and ambiguity. The appellants also argued that their use of the respondent's invention was protected by freedom of expression.

Issues

The main issues in the case were:

• Whether the respondent's patent was valid;
• Whether the appellants had infringed the respondent's patent; and
• Whether the appellants' use of the respondent's invention was protected by freedom of expression.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that:

• The respondent's patent was valid;
• The appellants had infringed the respondent's patent; and
• The appellants' use of the respondent's invention was not protected by freedom of expression.

Validity of the patent

The SCA found that the respondent's patent was new, inventive, and not ambiguous. The SCA also found that the respondent had met the requirements for a valid patent under the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act).

Infringement of the patent

The SCA found that the appellants had infringed the respondent's patent by manufacturing and selling plastic tubes coated with explosive powder on the inner surface. The SCA found that the appellants' product was substantially identical to the patented product.

Freedom of expression

The SCA held that the appellants' use of the respondent's invention was not protected by freedom of expression. The SCA found that the appellants' use of the invention was commercial in nature and that it was likely to damage the respondent's reputation.

Conclusion

The SCA granted an injunction restraining the appellants from infringing the respondent's patent.

Summary

The case of Ensign-Bickford (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Others v AECI Explosives & Chemicals Ltd 1998 BIP 271 (SCA) is a landmark case in South African law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The validity of patents;
• The infringement of patents; and
• The relationship between freedom of expression and patent law.

Validity of patents

The case established that a patent is valid if it is new, inventive, and not ambiguous. The case also established that the patentee must meet the requirements for a valid patent under the Act.

Infringement of patents

The case established that patent infringement occurs when a party manufactures, sells, or uses a product that is substantially identical to the patented product. The case also established that the infringer does not need to have intended to infringe the patent.

Relationship between freedom of expression and patent law

The case established that freedom of expression does not protect the use of a patented invention if the use is commercial in nature and is likely to damage the patentee's reputation.

Impact of the Case

The case of Ensign-Bickford (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Others v AECI Explosives & Chemicals Ltd 1998 BIP 271 (SCA) has had a significant impact on the law of patents and freedom of expression in South Africa. The case has established the principles that apply to the validity and infringement of patents, as well as the relationship between freedom of expression and patent law.