Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 05 May 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] FCAFC 65
• Date: 05 May 2021
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)

Federal Court of Australia

Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 65

Appeal from:	Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd (No 2)[2020] FCA 306 Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd (No 3)[2020] FCA 515
File number:	NSD 556 of 2020
Judgment of:	BEACH, MOSHINSKY AND THAWLEY JJ
Date of judgment:	5 May 2021
Catchwords:	PATENTS – standard and innovation patents for a method for detecting fluid injection in a patient – whether invalid for lack of novelty – working in public of the invention within the period of 12 months before the priority date – working for the purposes of “reasonable trial” – grace period exception under s 24(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – reg 2.2(2)(d) of the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) – infringement of patents – indirect infringement – s 117(2)(b) of the Act – application of objective standard – “reason to believe” – whether primary judge applied a subjective test – additional damages for infringement – s 122(1A) of the Act – exercise of discretion – appeal allowed
Legislation:	Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) s 3; Sch 6 items 32, 33 and 133(4) Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) s 13(1)(c) Patents Act 1903 (Cth) s 124 Patents Act 1952 (Cth) s 158 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 9, 18, 24, 117, 122(1A), 228; Sch 1 Patents Bill 1990 (Cth) cll 37 and 38 ; Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment (Raising the Bar) Regulation 2013 (No 1) (Cth) reg 4; Sch 6 item 7 Patents Amendment Regulations 2002 (No 1) (Cth) Sch 1 items 2 to 6 Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) regs 2.2, 2.3, 23.36(4) item 3 ; Patents and Designs HL Bill (1949) Patents Act 1949 (UK) s 51 Patents Act 1977 (UK) s 60 ; Commonwealth of Australia, Report of the Committee Appointed by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to Consider what Alterations are Desirable in the Patent Law of the Commonwealth (1952) Explanatory Memorandum, Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 (Cth) Explanatory Memorandum, Patents Bill 1990 (Cth) HL Deb 16 May 1949, vol 162, cols 651 to 719 HL Deb 30 May 1949, vol 162, cols 1203 to 1233
Cases cited:	Alphapharm Pty Limited v H Lundbeck (2014) 254 CLR 247 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd(2014) 226 FCR 324 Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 1372 Coretell Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (2017) 250 FCR 155 Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd (2015) 318 ALR 483 Generic Health Pty Ltd v Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (2013) 100 IPR 240 Grove Hill Pty Ltd v Great Western Corp Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 257 House v The King(1936) 55 CLR 499 In re Newall and Elliot (1858) 4 C.B.N.S. 269 Industrial Galvanizers Corporation Pty Ltd v Safe Direction Pty Ltd (2018) 135 IPR 220 Innovative Agriculture Products Pty Ltd v Cranshaw (1996) 35 IPR 643 Insta Image Pty Ltd v KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd (2008) 239 FCR 117 Longworth v Emerton(1951) 83 CLR 539 Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell (2008) 236 CLR 101 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2020) 381 ALR 601 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd (2016) 120 IPR 431 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd (No 4) (2015) 113 IPR 191 Oxworks Trading Pty Ltd v Gram Engineering Pty Ltd (2019) 154 IPR 215 Paper Sacks Pty Ltd v Cowper (1934) ALR 102 Paper Sacks Pty Ltd v Cowper (1935) ALR 461 SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v BASF Australia Ltd (2019) 140 IPR 276 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362 Zetco Pty Ltd v Austworld Commodities Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 848
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Patents and associated Statutes
Number of paragraphs:	408
Date of hearing:	19 and 20 November 2020
Counsel for the Appellant/Cross-Respondent:	Mr C Moore SC with Mr A Fox and Ms A McDonald
Solicitor for the Appellant/Cross-Respondent:	Shelston IP Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent/Cross-Appellant:	Mr C Dimitriadis SC with Mr R Clark
Solicitor for the Respondent/Cross-Appellant:	Silberstein & Associates

ORDERS

		NSD 556 of 2020
BETWEEN:	FUCHS LUBRICANTS (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD (ACN 005 681 916) Appellant
AND:	QUAKER CHEMICAL (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 465 949) Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	QUAKER CHEMICAL (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 465 949) Cross-Appellant
AND:	FUCHS LUBRICANTS (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD (ACN 005 681 916) Cross-Respondent

order made by:	BEACH, MOSHINSKY AND THAWLEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	5 May 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The declaration, orders and certification embodied in orders 1, 3 to 7 and 9 of the orders made by the primary judge on 20 April 2020 be set aside.

3. The cross-appeal be dismissed.

4. Within 14 days of these orders, the appellant file and serve proposed minutes of orders and submissions (limited to 5 pages) on the question of any consequential orders including the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal, and on the question of the costs of the proceeding below.

5. Within 14 days of the receipt of such proposed minutes and submissions, the respondent file and serve responding minutes and submissions (limited to 5 pages) on those topics.

6. Liberty to apply.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. In the proceeding below, the appellant, Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd, was sued by the respondent before us, Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd, for patent infringement. Fuchs cross-claimed for invalidity. The primary judge rejected Fuchs’ invalidity case and accepted Quaker’s infringement case in part.

2. Fuchs now appeals against the primary judge’s rejection of its invalidity case concerning the ground of lack of novelty. Quaker has cross-appealed, in essence saying that the primary judge should have made further findings in its favour on its infringement case.

3. There were two patents in suit. One...