Australia: Omnibus claims and the doctrine of equivalents
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Australia: Omnibus claims and the doctrine of equivalents

For many years, Australia has allowed omnibus claims, which take the form of "an apparatus substantially as hereinbefore described…". They have been utilised as a last line of defence for patentees when suing defendants.

Unfortunately, Australia does not have a strong doctrine of equivalence, found for example, in US jurisprudence. Hence, we have tended towards a literal infringement of claims.

Any hope that the omnibus claim would assist in finding non-literal infringement of patent applications has recently been dashed by our Full Federal Court in GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd [2016] FCAFC 90.

The subject matter of the case dealt with a spill-free syringe dispensing system, which dominated the consumer market. The defendants had invented around the main claim and had developed an alternate syringe that the trial judge found had "exactly the same function". Unfortunately, for the patentee, the defendant's modifications meant that there was no literal infringement of the main claims.

The trial judge held that the omnibus claim could be utilised in a doctrine of equivalence sense to cover the "substance" of the invention. The Full Court overruled the trial judge, and, as a result, severely curtailed the operation of omnibus claims. The Court noted the overriding requirement for the omnibus claim to not extend beyond what was covered by the claims.

As a consequence, omnibus claims (which have recently also been curtailed by our Patents Act), are significantly reduced in effectiveness. Also, our courts appear to be moving towards a literal infringement position of patent claims which will be of great concern to patentees.


Peter Treloar

Shelston IPLevel 21, 60 Margaret StreetSydney NSW 2000, AustraliaTel: +61 2 9777 1111Fax: +61 2 9241

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
The impact of the recently agreed treaty may be modest at first but is likely to become more significant over time
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Gift this article