Letraset Ltd v Helios Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1972 (3) SA 245 (A)

Letraset Ltd v Helios Ltd
1972 (3) SA 245 (A)

1972 (3) SA p245

Citation	1972 (3) SA 245 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Holmes JA, Potgieter JA, Jansen JA, van Winsen AJA and Kotzé AJA
Heard	February 15, 1972; February 16, 1972; February 17, 1972; February 18, 1972
Judgment	April 4, 1972

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Patent — Infringement claimed — Counter-claim for revocation of F patent — Attacks on patent based on insufficiency of definition of claim and material misrepresentation failing — Certain claims invalid for lack of novelty — Certain claims valid and infringed — Matter remitted to Commissioner for further evidence as to whether certain G other claims valid or not and, if valid, whether infringed — 'The invention' — Meaning of in sec. 23 (1) (l) of Act 37 of 1952 — 'Describe' in definition of 'new' in sec. 1 — Meaning of — Costs.

Headnote : Kopnota

The words 'the invention' in section 23 (1) (l) of the Patents Act, 37 of 1952, must be read as 'the invention as claimed'. For the purpose of H applying this section each claim of the complete specification must be considered separately.

Where an infringement is alleged, the enquiry consists of comparing the article complained of with the definition of the claim.

'Describe' in sub-paragraph (a) of the definition of 'new' in section 1 of Act 37 of 1952 is used in its ordinary meaning of 'to set forth in words or recite the characteristics of'. Whether any embodiment of the definition of the claim is 'described' in a prior publication is a matter of determining whether that embodiment is there set forth in words or its characteristics there recited.

1972 (3) SA p246

The appellant, a company incorporated under British law, was the owner of a South African patent relating to a particular type of letterpress adhesive transfer. The respondent, incorporated under South African law, was trading in an adhesive transfer known as Meca Norma. The appellant, averring infringement, brought an action against the respondent in the court of the Commissioner for Patent for South Africa. The respondent A denied infringement and counterclaimed for revocation of the appellant's patent. The issue involved were; (a) was the appellant's patent revocable - (i) for insufficiency of definition of the claims; (ii) for lack of novelty; (iii) for material misrepresentation. (b) If all the foregoing were answered negatively, had the respondent infringed the appellant's patent? The Commissioner had answered (a) (i) to (iii) negatively and (b) affirmatively. He granted an order restraining B further infringement with ancillary relief and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. On successful appeal, the Transvaal Provincial Division answered (a) (i) in the negative, but (a) (ii) affirmatively and granted an order revoking the patent. It dismissed the action for infringement. In a further appeal,

Held, that the attack based on insufficiency failed for, if one construed the phrases in the definition of the claims in the light of what might be called the dictionary of context and specification, they C would seem to convey a reasonable certainty of definition to the minds of persons skilled in the relevant art who conscientiously tried to make the best of the claims.

Held, further, that the attack based on material misrepresentation also failed.

Held, further, however, (HOLMES, J.A., and VAN WINSEN, A.J.A., dissenting), that claims 1 and 2 were invalid for lack of novelty, i.e. in that they had been anticipated.

Held, further, that the validity or otherwise of claims other than claims 1, 2, 17, 18 and 20 could not be determined without further evidence.

D Held, further, that, if claims 7, 10 and 11 were found not to have been anticipated they had been infringed.

Held, therefore, that the appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to the Commissioner to determine, after further evidence, whether any of the claims other than claims 1, 2, 17, 18 and 20 had been anticipated, and whether, if claim 16 was found to be valid, it had been infringed.

E The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Helios Ltd. v Letraset, Ltd., set aside.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division (CILLIÉ, J.P., BOSHOFF, J., and COLMAN, J.). The facts appear from the judgment of HOLMES, J.A. F

B. L. S. Franklin, S.C. (with him R. H. Peart ), for the appellant: On the question of lack of novelty, see Veasey v Denver Rock Drill & Machinery Co. Ltd., 1930 AD 243; Transvaal & O.F.S. Chamber of Mines v General Electric Company, 1967 (2) SA 32; Pope Appliance G Corporation v Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., 46 R.P.C. 23 (P.C.); Gentiruco A.G. v Firestone South Africa (Pty.) Ltd., 1972 (1) SA 589; Lowndes' Patent, 45 R.P.C. 48 (cited in Terrell on Patents, 11th ed., p. 117, para 293); Hills v Evans, 31 L.J. Ch. 457; C. van der Lely N.V. v Bamfords Ltd., 1963 R.P.C. 61; Halsbury, Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 29, p. 27; British Thomson-Houston v Metropolitan H Vickers, (1923) 45 R.P.C. 1; Blanco White, Patents for Inventions, 3rd ed., pp. 100 - 102; British Celanese v Courtaulds, (1935) 52 R.P.C. 171; Vine and Another and West Rand Engineering Works (Pty.) Ltd., v Barret and Pillans Ltd., 1939 W.L.D. 238; Walker on Patents (Deller's ed.), para. 482; Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. Ltd. v Hardcastle, (1925) 42 R.P.C. 543; Metropolitan Vickers Electrical Co. Ltd. v British Thomson-Houston Co. Ltd., (1926) 43 R.P.C. 76; Herculite Products (Pty.) Ltd. v Harris Ceiling Industries Ltd., Patent Journal (19th February, 1958)

1972 (3) SA p247

13; Rodi and Wienenberger A.G. v Frank & Hirsch (Pty.) Ltd. Patent Journal (28th August, 1957) 13. On the question of material misrepresentation see Blanco White, supra at p. 151; Terrell, para. 254; Bendz Ltd. and Another v SA Lead Works Ltd., 1963 (3) SA 797; A Petition of Kromschroeder, 1960 R.P.C. 75. On the issue of infringement, see Frank & Hirsch (Pty.) Ltd. v Rodi & Wienenberger, 1960 (3) SA 747; Vine's case, 1939 W.L.D. at p. 244; Herculite Products Ltd. v Harris, 1952 (1) SA 627; Van der Lely v Bamfords Ltd., 1963 R.P.C. 61; Terrell, paras. 385 - 394; Halsbury, vol. 29, para. 178; Martin and B Biro Swan Ltd. v Millward Ltd., 1965 R.P.C. 125; Grotius, Jurisprudence of Holland, 3.32.12,13; McKenzie v van der Merwe, 1917 AD 41; Mouton and Others v Beket, 1918 AD 181; Innes v Short and Beal, 15 R.P.C. 449; Walker on Patents, (Deller's ed.), vol. 3, para 507; 1962 Supplement, pp. 96 - 100. On the interpretation of se t. 54 of the Patents Act, 37 of 1952, see Ore Concentration Co. (1905) Ltd. v. C Sulphide Corporation Ltd., (1914) 31 R.P.C. 206.

S. Kentridge, S.C. (with him N. M. McArthur ), for the respondent: On the issue of the specification, see Gentiruco A.G. v Firestone SA (Pty.) Ltd., 1972 (1) SA 589; Halsbury, 3rd ed., vol. 29. p. 108, D para. 220. On the issue of lack of novelty, see Veasey v Denver Rock Drill & Machinery Co. Ltd., 1930 AD 243; Pope Applicance Corporation v Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., 1929 A.C. 269; Drummond-Hay v Fram & Co. (Pty.) Ltd., 1963 (3) SA 490; Hills v Evans, (1862) 31 L.J. Chap. 457; Blanco White, Patents for Inventions, 3rd ed. p. 99; E Transvaal & O.F.S. Chamber of Mines v Hukki, 1964 (2) SA at p. 530A; 'Z' Electric v Marples, Leach & Co., 27 R.P.C. 737; Halsbury, supra; Terrell, Law of Patents, 11th ed., paras. 288, 289; Molins v Industrial Machinery Co. Ltd., (1938) 55 R.P.C. 31; Electrical & Musical Industries Ltd., v Lissen Ltd., 54 R.P.C. 307; Veasey's case, supra; Miller v Eagle Manufacturing Co., 151 US. S.C. 186; Kaye v Chubb & F Sons Ltd., (1887) 4 R.P.C. 290; C. van der Lely N.V. v Bamfords Ltd., 1963 R.P.C. 61; Deller's Walker on Patents, 2nd ed., p. 71; Wright, Boag & Head Wrightson (Pty.) Ltd. v Buffalo Brake Beam Co., Patent Journal, December 8th, 1965; Drummond-Hay v Fram & Co. (Pty.) Ltd., 1962 (2) SA 250; Randburg Electro-Coating Corp. v Jay Products (Pty.) Ltd., G 1968 (2) P.H., M10; Gentiruco, supra. On the issue of material misrepresentation, see Bendz Ltd. and Another v SA Lead Works Ltd., 1963 (3) SA 797. On the issue of ambiguity, see Gentiruco, supra; Transvaal & O.F.S. Chamber of Mines v Hukki, supra; Natural Colour Kinematograph Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation ) v Bioschemes Ltd., 32 R.P.C. 256; Blanco White, p. 64; Stroud, Judicial Dictionary, s.v. H ' substantial'; Beretta v Beretta, 1924 T.P.D. 60; Terrell, para. 887; British Thomson-Houston Co. Ltd. v Corona Lamp Works Ltd., (1922) 39 R.P.C. 49; Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co. and Others v Glacier Metal Co. Ltd., (1950) 67 R.P.C. 149; No-Fume Ltd. v Frank Pitchford & Co. Ltd., (1935) 52 R.P.C. 231. On the issue of infringement, see Electrical & Musical Industries v Lissen, 56 R.P.C. 23; African Batignolles Constructions (Pty.) Ltd., 1955 (4) SA 215; Nobel's Explosives Co. v Anderson,

1972 (3) SA p248

11 R.P.C. 115; Gillette Safety Razor Co. v Anglo-American Trading Co.

Franklin, S.C., in reply.

Cur adv vult. A

Postea (April 4th).

Judgment

Holmes, J.A.:

The appellant, a company incorporated under British law, B is the owner of South African patent No. R61/259 relating to a particular type of letterpress adhesive transfer. The respondent, incorporated under South African law, is trading in an adhesive transfer known as MecaNorma. The appellant, averring infringement, brought an action against the respondent in the court of the Commissioner for C Patents for South Africa. The respondent denied infringement, and counterclaimed for revocation of the appellant's patent.

The issues may be summarised thus:

(a)

Is the appellant's patent revocable -

(i)

for insufficiency of definition of the claims;

(ii)

for lack of novelty;

(iii)

for material misrepresentation.

(b)

D If all the foregoing are answered negatively, has the respondent...