The original Word document is unavailable.
Please contact Judgments@fedcourt.gov.au to rectify.
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kinabalu Investments Pty Ltd v Barron & Rawson Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 314
CORRIGENDUM
KINABULU INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 001 469 718) v BARRON & RAWSON PTY LTD (ACN 000 065 636), ANTHONY J CAREY AND WAY TO GO AUSSINDO PTY LTD (ACN 080 761 511)
QUD 217 OF 2005
SPENDER J
11 MARCH 2008 (CORRIGENDum 28 MARCH 2008)
BRISBANE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY |
QUD 217 OF 2005 |
|
BETWEEN: |
KINABULU INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 001 469 718) Applicant
|
|
AND: |
BARRON & RAWSON PTY LTD (ACN 000 065 636) First Respondent
ANTHONY J CAREY Second Respondent
WAY TO GO AUSSINDO PTY LTD (ACN 080 761 511) Third Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
SPENDER J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
11 MARCH 2008 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
BRISBANE |
CORRIGENDUM
1. In paragraph 75, add the word “not” before the word “invalid”.
|
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Spender. |
Associate:
Dated: 28 March 2008
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kinabalu Investments Pty Ltd v Barron & Rawson Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 314
CORRIGENDA
QUD 217 OF 2005
SPENDER J
11 MARCH 2008 (CORRIGENDa 17 MARCH 2008)
BRISBANE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY |
QUD 217 OF 2005 |
|
BETWEEN: |
KINABULU INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 001 469 718) Applicant
|
|
AND: |
BARRON & RAWSON PTY LTD (ACN 000 065 636) First Respondent
ANTHONY J CAREY Second Respondent
WAY TO GO AUSSINDO PTY LTD (ACN 080 761 511) Third Respondent
|
|
SPENDER J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
11 MARCH 2008 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
BRISBANE |
CORRIGENDA
1. In paragraph 42 substitute “Gesellschaft at 455” for “Gesellschaftat 455”.
2. In paragraph 70 substitute “The respondents’ allegation” for “The respondent’s allegation”.
3. Delete paragraph 75 and replace with the following:
“75 Crennan J agreed with French and Lindgren JJ that Claim 10 of the patent in suit was invalid because it was obvious or disclosed no inventive step, and with the other findings of their Honours, save the finding with respect to fair basis. Crennan J was of the view that Claim 10 was fairly based on the matter described in the specification.”
4. In paragraph 85 substitute “The question is not whether” for “The question is whether” at the commencement of the paragraph.
5. In paragraph 86 delete “(p 113 behind tab ‘Section 3’ in agreed bundle)”.
6. Delete paragraph 93 and replace with the following:
“93 The Abstract speaks of “a reinforcement system for highway barriers comprising a frame structure mounted on the surface of an associated highway barrier …”. Dr Jenkins frequently expresses the view that the frame assembly is not secured or connected to the barrier units: “The frame assembly in the Wasserstrom System is not secured or connected to the barrier units.” It follows, in Dr Jenkins’ view, that it would not operate to provide the composite beam effect, because it is not secured or connected to the side wall of the barrier unit.”
7. In paragraph 94, substitute “frame assembly to move longitudinally” for “frame assembly to longitudinally”.
8. In paragraph 107, substitute “(section 18(1))” for “(section 181(1))”.
|
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigenda to the Reasons for Judgment of his HonourJustice Spender. |
Associate:
Dated: 17 March 2008
