Australia: Supporting evidence in patent specifications

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Australia: Supporting evidence in patent specifications

The recent Full Federal Court case of Morellini v Mizzi Family Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 13 has highlighted the danger of using unsupported assertions in patent specifications.

The technology of the case dealt with sugar cane planting, with the applicant committing a fatal error in asserting: "it is found that" inclining a soil mound by about 40 degrees provided superior warming of the soil by the sun.

During prosecution, the applicant had argued the soil mound inclination was a significant feature of the claim that distinguished it from the prior art.

The problem was that there was no evidence that the soil mound incline had any effect on heating of the soil. The applicant tried to argue that this was part of their "own experience and conclusions". However the Court rejected this argument as totally speculative.

The Court concluded the patent was invalid for false suggestion or misrepresentation. Hence, the applicant's somewhat innocuous use of the term "it has been found", rather than say "it is conjectured, thought or believed", has led to the destruction of its patent rights.

The obvious takeaway from the case is to review specifications to revise assertions that are not backed by evidence.

treloar.jpg

Peter Treloar


Shelston IPLevel 21, 60 Margaret StreetSydney NSW 2000, AustraliaTel: +61 2 9777 1111Fax: +61 2 9241 4666email@shelstonip.comwww.shelstonip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
Gift this article