|
Sachtler’s patent related to an adjustable camera tripod, in which the three telescopic sections of each leg of the tripod could be moved relative to each other, and then clamped or fixed in position using a single lever. This was said to represent an improvement over pre-existing tripods, which required two levers on each leg (at two so-called fixing locations), in order to be able to fix the three telescopic sections relative to each other. The Sachtler patent achieved this improvement by the use of a coupling/actuating bar (such as a torsion rod), which extended between the two fixing locations on each telescopic leg and enabled a single clamping lever to be used to fix all three telescopic units in position.
Sachtler alleged that Miller’s Sprinter 2 Stage Tripod infringed a number of the claims of its patent. Miller denied this allegation, on the basis the fixing mechanism used in its tripod to clamp the telescopic units was fundamentally different to that described by the Sachtler patent.
Bennett J ultimately agreed with Miller that the fixing mechanism of the Miller tripod differed from the tripod claimed by the Sachtler patent, in that while the Miller tripod employs a torsion rod to facilitate telescopic movement between two of its three telescopic units (being the lower and middle units), the torsion rod plays no role facilitating movement between the upper and middle telescopic units. Bennett J was of the view that this was an essential feature of the Sachtler patent and, in its absence, the Miller tripod did not infringe the patent.
In her judgment, Bennett J clearly rejects any notion that a patent may be infringed by taking the “pith and marrow” or the substance of an invention but not the essential integers of the claim.
Her Honour also considered the Improver questions, as put by Hoffman J in Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Limited [1990] FSR 181 at 189, as merely a means to justify a conclusion that must already be reached on the construction of the claims.
“… I do not consider that utilisation of those questions is helpful other than, perhaps, as a ‘check’ on the conclusion reached as to the characterisation of essential or inessential integers present in the allegedly infringing article. They are no substitute for construction of the claim to ascertain the essential and inessential integers and a determination regarding the presence of those integers for infringement.”
Consistent with that observation, Bennett J used the Improver questions as a “check”. Her Honour found that the Miller fixing system was “another way of achieving the result by a different combination that contains a variant that, as properly construed, is different from an essential integer”. On that basis the Court held that there was no infringement.
Shelston IP Lawyers represented RE Miller Pty Ltd. Sachtler has appealed the decision.
|
