Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd

Patents – Validity – Fair basing of claims – Patent for a door lock – Specification included a consistory clause and described a preferred embodiment – Central claim essentially repeated consistory clause – Whether claim was "fairly based" on the matter described in the specification within s 40(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) or travelled beyond it – Whether test of fair basing involves consideration of "merit", "inventive step", "technical contribution to the art" or general "fairness" – Whether grounds of invalidity under Patents Act must be kept distinct.

Words and phrases – "consistory clause", "fairly based", "fair basing", "inventive step", "invention", "merit", "real and reasonably clear disclosure", "technical contribution to the art", "the matter described in the specification".

Patents Act 1952 (Cth) – s 40(2).

Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – ss 18(1), 40(2), 40(3), 45(1), 59, 138(3), Sched 1.

Patents Act 1949 (UK) – s 4(4).

Patents Act 1977 (UK) – ss 14, 72(1)(c).