Aus court rules fuel cell patent infringed
The Federal Court of Australia has ruled that local stapler company Airco Fasteners infringed a patent from Fortune 200 engineering firm Illinois Tool Works (ITW).
In a judgment handed down on May 5, Justice Rofe dismissed Airco’s bid to “set aside” amendments made to claims of ITWs patent in the lead up to the trial, and dismissed the company's claim construction defence.
The patent in question, Australian patent 2005232970, is titled “In-can fuel cell metering valve” and relates to fuel cells for use in combustion tools.
ITW sought a ruling that Airco’s combustion tool fuel cell products “Senco”, “Senco Pack”, and “Airco Procell” infringe the ‘970 patent and sought injunctive, monetary and declaratory relief. Specifically, ITW claimed that Airco infringed claims 1, 2, 3, 17 and 20 of the patent.
According to the judgment, Airco admitted that its fuel cell products comprise “nearly all of the features of the asserted claims”, but disputed that it infringed based on its interpretation of two terms found throughout the patent claims—“opposite” and “close proximity”.
Highlighting the specific differences, Airco said that the fuel metering chamber in its cells is not “disposed in close proximity to said closure”, nor did the metering valve have “a valve body having a second end opposite said fuel metering chamber”, both of which it says were “required” in claim 1 of the ‘970 patent.
Rofe sided with ITW on the issue of claim construction, ruling that Airco’s fuel cells were indeed in “close proximity” to the closure and therefore protected by claim 1 of the patent.
As much of Airco’s defence was predicated on the interpretations of these two terms, following the dismissal of the Australian company’s claim construction arguments, Rofe ruled that Airco’s products infringed all claims of the patent.
Rofe also denied Airco’s bid to extend time to file an appeal and oppose the amendments made to the patent.
Rofe concluded: “I am satisfied that any appeal by Airco from the delegate’s decision would be futile and accordingly, Airco’s application for an extension of time in which to file the notice of appeal would be rejected.”
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
