Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">local government (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">rating</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">rural land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">land used for the business of grazing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">land used for agistment of cattle and horses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">case stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">mixed question of law and fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">local government act, 1919 (n.s.w.), s. 118 (1) "rural land", land valuation court act, 1921 (n.s.w.), s. 17.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 112">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 112">proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 112">s 42d remittal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 112">preliminary issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 112">whether reconsideration of a determination made by an employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 112">whether reconsideration was undertaken on employer's own initiative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">commonwealth employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">nurse sustained back injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">claim for arachnoiditis arising from reaction to myodil used in myelogram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">liability accepted for intervertebral disc protrusion, inflammatory reaction, epilepsy and depression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">alternative diagnoses of degenerative lumbar spondylosis, spinal canal stenosis and conversion disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">whether aat has jurisdiction to determine liability for alternative diagnoses in absence of decision by comcare as to those diagnoses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">consideration of transitional provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">held that arachnoiditis was a disease, not an injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">whether claim for permanent impairment can be determined before determination of liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">held that comcare liable for arachnoiditis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">held with hindsight that improvement from implant of spinal stimulator was not permanent and applicant not entitled to compensation for new impairment under 1988 act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">rejection claim for incontinence remitted to comcare for further consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">held that comcare not liable for household and attendant care services because applicant's husband might reasonably be expected to provide services.   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">commonwealth employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">whether aat has jurisdiction to determine liability for alternative diagnoses in absence of decision by comcare as to those diagnoses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">jurisdiction of aat where reviewable decision relates to claim for permanent impairment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">inquisitorial role of aat in compensation matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">citing from="[2008] AATA 553">whether claim for permanent impairment can be determined before determination of liability.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 112" id="cs0">But if, as a finding of fact, the tribunal finds that the impairment was in fact permanent before the date of commencement of the 1992 Act then it isn't determined under the provisions of the 1992 Act, it's determined under the provisions of the predecessor. That's just a question of fact. Now, you know, and that's why the Excell case [ Excell v Comcare [2008] FCA 757] is relevant. So I can't control what findings of fact you may make, and indeed in a case where the injury occurred in 1972 it's at least possible, if not probable, that the issue of the date of permanency may be a live one on the facts and that's what I'm covering. I'm covering both the possible permutations of findings of fact in this case.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 553" id="cs1">Whilst Mrs Cavanagh and those treating her no doubt hoped that the stimulator would provide permanent relief, this did not in fact occur. An infection occurred and the stimulator had to be removed. It is well established that courts and tribunals may determine issues with the benefit of hindsight, where evidence is available prior to the time when a decision is given : see the authorities cited in Re Wagener and Comcare [2003] AATA 1083 ; (2003) 78 ALD 596 at [33] --- [34]. A recent example of that approach in the context of a claim for permanent impairment is Excell v Comcare [2008] FCA 757 , at [41]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l3">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 24 Compensation for injuries resulting in permanent impairment</title>
<title id="l5">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 124 Application of Act to pre-existing injuries</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">construction of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether reference to (+)-enantiomer in claim is a reference to (+)-enantiomer isolated from the (-)-enantiomer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">relevance of degree of purity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether primary judge added integers to claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">relevance of text of specification to construction of claims  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether a racemate anticipates an enantiomer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">clarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether claims are clear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether claims define the invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">range of dosage in claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether entire range of dosage claimed has to be useful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether entire range of dosage is useful patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">method for preparation of a compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether method claim in patent-in-suit excluded possibility of substituting another halogen or pseudo-halogen for the cyano group disclosed in the claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether the cyano-diol was an essential integer patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">extension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether pharmaceutical substance per se</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 70">whether (+)-enantiomer disclosed in patent is contained in racemate included in australian register of therapeutic goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">pharmaceutical compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">no claim for particular stereochemistry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether racemate only claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether claims covered [beta] anomer. patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">pharmaceutical compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether invention useful according to promises in patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether toxicity compromises utility. patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">process for manufacture of chemical compound. patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">process for manufacture of chemical compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether invention lacked inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">common general knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether lack of inventive step established an interlocutory application. interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">alleged infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether prima facie case made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether defences of invalidity made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">necessary strength of defences on interlocutory application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether damages an adequate remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">alleged infringer entering established market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">whether possible to restore applicant to present position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.26">cited from="[2008] FCA 1498">relevance of apparent strength of substantive cases.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">applications for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">patent in suit claiming d -enantiomer (clopidogrel) of racemate, pharmaceutical compositions of d -enantiomer and process for preparation of each</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">where racemate the subject of prior art patents in australia and overseas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">available grounds for revocation where patent in suit granted under patents act 1952 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether d -enantiomer a novel invention in light of prior art patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether pharmaceutical compositions (salts) of d -enantiomer novel in light of prior art patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether process for preparation novel in light of prior art patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether patent in suit valid as a selection patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether obtaining d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">enantiomer of racemate, preparing its pharmaceutical compositions (salts) and the process for preparation obvious so as to lack inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">relevance to consideration of inventive step of references to prior art patents in patent in suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">enantiomer valid as a manner of manufacture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether patent in suit contained false suggestion or representation that was a material inducing factor leading to grant of patent in suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">whether d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">enantiomer a useful invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 1194">applications granted in part and dismissed in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">construction of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">construction of specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">common general knowledge in relevant field of art</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">whether patent is restricted to the racemate of a claimed compound or extends to the enantiomers of the compounds individually and mixtures of the enantiomers  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">revocation of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">whether patent obtained by false suggestion or misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">representation in specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">representation in correspondence with commissioner's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">whether claimed invention is a patentable invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">whether claimed invention is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of the statute of monopolies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 82">whether claimed invention is useful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">application for interlocutory injunction to restrain infringement of a patent where application made for the revocation of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">prima facie case where patent is longstanding and has been exploited and revocation proceedings were not brought in timely fashion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">where balance of convenience favours not disturbing the status quo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1485">injunction granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">lockwood security products pty ltd v doric products pty ltd [no 2]  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">the respondent challenged the validity of the appellant's patent on the grounds of lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">the patent concerned a key operated door lock combining known integers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">the patent included both a broad claim (a bare combination of integers) and a narrow claim (a "preferred embodiment" of those integers)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">whether the claimed combination of integers was obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">whether some of the patent claims were invalid for lack of inventive step.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">whether inventive step is to be judged by reference to the claimed combination as a whole, or by reference to the addition of an integer to a known combination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">relevance of "idea" or "problem" underlying patent to the determination of inventive step.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">distinction between want of novelty and lack of inventive step.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">prior art base</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">meaning of "common general knowledge"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">meaning of "prior art information" in s 7(3) of the patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">whether "prior art information" differs as between a narrow claim and a broad claim in the one patent when assessing obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">meaning of "regarded as relevant"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">meaning of "ascertained"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">meaning of "understood".  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">construction of, and relationship between, dependent claims following determination of invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.27">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">whether order for amendment should be made.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.28">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.29">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.30">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">whether the patent specification contained an "implicit corollary admission" regarding common general knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.31">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">whether that admission constituted evidence of obviousness and lack of inventive step.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.32">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.33">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">prior art base</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.34">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">relevance of "secondary evidence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.35">cited from="[2007] HCA 21">weight to be given to the failure of other skilled persons (both inventive and non-inventive) to arrive at the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1407">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1407">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1407">application to restrain respondent from importing and supplying pharmaceutical products containing applicant's patented compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1407">claim that patent invalid for lack of novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1407">considerations relevant to grant of injunction where respondent challenges validity of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1407">whether serious question to be tried on validity of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">bisphosphonates known to inhibit bone resorption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">oral administration of bisphosphonates known to cause gastrointestinal side effects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">administration of bisphosphonates at high relative dosage and low relative dosing frequency found to reduce side effects  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">manner of manufacture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">new dosage regime for known substance to treat known condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">high dosage weekly as opposed to regimens of low dosage daily or cyclic treatments patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">industry journal distributed via mailing list</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">whether to be 'publicly available' a publication must be catalogued or identified in a way which would enable anybody to find it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">articles suggest dosage regime 'needs to be tested'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 91">whether articles nonetheless constitute an anticipation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">fair basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">sufficiency of description of invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">disclosure of best method of invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">date of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">false suggestion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">patent for treatment of erectile dysfunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">common general knowledge at priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">relevant prior art</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">use of evidence of overseas witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">claim for infringement of patent for hard coated sugarless chewing gum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">cross-claim for invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">integers of a coating including hydrogenated isomaltulose and centre with low moisture content</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">denial of infringement and cross claim for invalidity patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">meaning of the term "hydrogenated isolmaltulose"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether confined to commercial sugar substitute palatinit or all forms of hydrogenated isolmaltulose patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">manner of manufacture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">palatinit not previously used in sugarless chewing gums</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether the skilled reader would think that the known properties of the substance made it suitable for use in the manner contemplated by the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether patent a true combination of integers or merely a collocation patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether the notional skilled but non-inventive worker (or team) would, in all the circumstances, be led directly to try making a sugarless chewing gum with the two essential integers of the patent in the expectation that it might well produce a useful alternative to, or a better product than, other hard coated sugarless gums patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">palatinit promotional material, known as the infopac, contained recipes for making various candies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether the infopac contains sufficient disclosure to anticipate the claimed invention patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">false suggestion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">specification incorrectly referred to hydrogenated isomaltulose as "substantially hygroscopic"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether the suggestion or representation materially contributed to the commissioner's decision to grant the patent patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">non-compliance with section 40</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether the specification fully describes the invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether the claims define the invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether claims fairly based in the body of the specification  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">50 per cent weight of hydrogenated isomaltulose required for utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">not all claims specify a particular amount of hydrogenated isomaltulose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.27">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether all claims fail for inutility patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.28">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.29">cited from="[2005] FCA 1035">whether gums imported and sold by respondent shown by testing to have the integers of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 90">date of hearing: 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 90">3 march 2005 date of judgment: 23 may 2005"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">lockwood security products pty ltd v doric products pty ltd  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">fair basing of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">patent for a door lock</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">specification included a consistory clause and described a preferred embodiment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">central claim essentially repeated consistory clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">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</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether test of fair basing involves consideration of "merit", "inventive step", "technical contribution to the art" or general "fairness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether grounds of invalidity under patents act must be kept distinct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">reverse infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no suggested advantage or difference between materials in possible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">reverse infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">equal in practical utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">clear directions in prior art to work within claimed ranges or proportions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no suggestion that specified proportions or ranges other than arbitrary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">claim construction and disclosure in prior art a matter for expert evidence only to the extent of special meaning to skilled reader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">reliance on evidence of skilled worker with no common general knowledge in australia for inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">mental logic of the notional team constituting the skilled addressee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">evidence given without knowledge of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no hindsight analysis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">test in astra</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">not a question of worthwhile to try</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">inventive step is the choice of metal alloys in the combination that was otherwise common general knowledge and acknowledged as known in the specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no suggestion that initiation of inventive step in other than the choice of the new alloys for use in the reflective layers by reference to known requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">dependent and omnibus claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">incorporates the invalidity of the independent claims to the extent of dependence on that claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.21">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">lack of sufficiency of description costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.22">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">o 62 r 11(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.23">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">gross sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.24">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">evidence of detailed bill of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.25">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no appearance by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.26">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">further expense and delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.27">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">success by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.28">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">award of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.29">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">amount logical, fair and reasonable practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.30">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.31">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">revocation of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.32">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">patentee chooses not to defend patent monopoly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.33">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">federal court rules o 10 r 7(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.34">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">o 11 r 23(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.35">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">o 33 r 3 (repealed)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.36">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">s 190(3) evidence act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.37">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">discretion in s 190(3) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.38">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">relevance of o 33 r 3 (repealed) to s 190(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.39">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">translations of prior art japanese patent not a certified translation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">aktiebolaget hssle v alphapharm pty limited  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">obviousness or lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">patent for an oral pharmaceutical preparation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether invention obvious and did not involve an inventive step having regard to what was known or used in australia on or before priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">combination of integers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">preparation arrived at by group of pharmaceutical chemists after period of experimental research</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether hypothetical non-inventive worker in the field would have been led directly as a matter of course to pursue one avenue in expectation that it might well produce claimed invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">relevance of publications discoverable by "routine literature search" but not found to have been part of the common general knowledge in australia at the priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether invention obvious if it was apparent to a non-inventive skilled worker that it would be "worthwhile to try" each of the integers that was ultimately successfully used</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">relevance of attempts to replicate the process of invention by a skilled person aware of the desired result</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether attempts futile.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether decision of primary judge in respect of obviousness affected by legal error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">where conclusions of primary judge affirmed by full court of the federal court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">kimberly-clark australia pty ltd v arico trading international pty ltd  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether invention sufficiently described</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether complete specification includes claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether sufficiency determined by reference to skilled addressee.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">undertaking as to damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">whether sustained by reason of grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">distinction between loss or damage caused by grant of interlocutory injunction and loss or damage arising from litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">defendant added after commencement of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">original undertaking as to damages extended to added defendant.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">objection to competence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">claim for damages for loss sustained by reason of grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">usual undertaking as to damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">order refusing damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">whether judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">cited from="[1981] HCA 75">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 34.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">action for infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">principles governing grant or refusal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">combination claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">words used in specification and claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">ambiguity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">consistory clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">generality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">sufficiency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">patents act 1952-1955 (cth) ss. 40*, 100 (1) (c), (e), (g) and (h).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">eradication of weeds from crop areas by application of chemicals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">known substances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">new properties discovered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">new process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">vendible product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">manner of manufacture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">statute of monopolies 1628 (21 jac. i, c. 3), s. 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 67">patents act 1952-1955 (cth), s. 6.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 71">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 71">application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 71">refusal to accept</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 71">powers and duties of commissioner of patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 71">claim for new use of known materials in manufacture of well-known articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 71">inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 71">patents act 1903-1950 (cth), s. 46.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">whether claims fairly based on matter disclosed in body of specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">whether invention sufficiently described</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">whether claims clear  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">whether claims lacked an inventive step compared with prior art base</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">commercial success  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">revocation of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">whether patent obtained by false suggestion or misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">whether claimed invention is useful  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 1211">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">patent held valid and infringed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">relief pending appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">stay of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">whether undertakings appropriate  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">proceedings heard together</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">whether usual orders as to costs should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">whether apportionment of costs appropriate  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1212">confidentiality of part of reasons for judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">therapeutic goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">applications to register a therapeutic product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">power to issue statement of reasons without revealing whether documents are in the agency's possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">exemptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">adverse effect on proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 542">prejudice to proper administration of law</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1211" id="cs0">The applicants' principal defence to infringement is invalidity of the patent. They also contend that, if the patent is valid, their products do not infringe the patent. On 3 June, 25 August and 10 November 2009 interlocutory orders were made restraining each of the applicants from selling their products pending the final hearing and determination of these proceedings (see Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 81 IPR 339 ; [2009] FCA 595 and Alphapharm Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 82 IPR 71 ; [2009] FCA 945). A4 Issues
 Subject to variations, the applicants assert invalidity of the patent on the grounds of: lack of novelty by reason of a deferred priority date and anticipation by another patent known as the Alza or Edgren patent; lack of fair basis; insufficiency; lack of clarity/ambiguity; lack of inventive step; false suggestions or misrepresentations; and lack of entitlement. Although there are differences between the applicants' arguments, Sigma's closing submissions provide a convenient summary of the "essence of the attack" on validity, namely:

 (a) by amendments made to the Patent specification and claims on and subsequent to 20 December 2006, after filing of the complete specification and prior to acceptance, Wyeth has travelled beyond the disclosure in both the Priority Document and the Patent as filed and thus the claims asserted against [the applicants] are not entitled to claim a priority date prior to 20 December 2006;
 (b) if the priority date issue is resolved in [the applicants'] favour, the claims are anticipated by Wyeth's sale of its own form of EFEXOR XR (an extended release form of venlafaxine hydrochloride);
 (c) in any event, the invention purportedly claimed in claims 1 to 17 (and 27 insofar as it is dependent upon those claims) of the Patent does not disclose a manner of manufacture and is not inventive;
 (d) the amended form of the Patent was obtained upon the making of false representations to the Commissioner of Patents, which materially contributed to the grant;
 (e) Wyeth was not entitled to the Patent.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1212" id="cs1">(4) On 3 June 2009 orders were made enjoining Sigma from taking steps to exploit its generic extended release venlafaxine hydrochloride product ( Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 004 118 594) v Wyeth (2009) IPR 339 ; [2009] FCA 595). (5) Wyeth applied for an interlocutory injunction against Alphapharm on 24 July 2009. (6) On 25 August 2009 orders were made enjoining Alphapharm from taking steps to exploit its generic extended release venlafaxine hydrochloride product ( Alphapharm Pty Limited v Wyeth (2009) 82 IPR 71 ; [2009] FCA 945). (7) Generic Health obtained registration on the ARTG of its generic extended release venlafaxine hydrochloride product, "generichealth XR", on 6 August 2009. (8) On 10 November 2009 consent orders were made enjoining Generic Health from taking steps to exploit its generic extended release venlafaxine hydrochloride product.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 542" id="cs2">Dr Lopert was referred to the decisions in Alphapharm Pty Ltd v Wyeth and Ors [2009] FCA 945 and Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth and Ors [2009] FCA 595. In each of these cases, a generics company filed an application for revocation of Wyeth's patent and Wyeth then made a cross-claim for injunctive relief. Ms Allars said that the delays caused were the result of very complex proceedings. (The Tribunal notes that in both cases, the generics company was unaware of a 'method' (of manufacture) patent in relation to an extended release formulation of Wyeth's product. ) </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 3 Definitions</title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 6 Deposit requirements</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 7 Novelty and inventive step</title>
<title id="l4">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 18 Patentable inventions</title>
<title id="l5">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 40 Specifications</title>
<title id="l6">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 117 Infringement by supply of products</title>
<title id="l7">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 138 Revocation of patents in other circumstances</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">relationship between visa applicant and sponsoring spouse has ceased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">visa applicant and sponsoring spouse have ongoing connection with child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">subclause 801.221(6)(c)(ii) of the migration regulations 1994</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">whether a court order is necessary to satisfy subclause 801.221(6)(c)(ii)(a) of the migration regulations 1994</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">whether a statutory obligation to maintain a child satisfies subclause 801.221(6)(c)(ii)(e) words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1673">"custody", "formal maintenance obligation"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">notice of objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">decision of disciplinary appeal board to confirm decision of first respondent to terminate employment of applicant for misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">whether decisions amenable to review under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">whether decision under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">whether excluded from review as being decisions under an instrument of the industrial relations act 1988 .  telecommunications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">determinations made under telecommunications amendment act 1988 and australian telecommunications corporation act 1989</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">determinations continued disciplinary procedures laid down in telecommunications act 1975 save for those prescribed under an award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">award subsequently made pursuant to industrial relations act 1988 containing disciplinary procedures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">whether award procedures applicable despite being subsequent to determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">whether employment of applicant terminated under the determinations or under the award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">award stated to prevail over determinations where inconsistency exists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 661">whether appeal procedures in award inconsistent with those in determinations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 432">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 432">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 432">presumption of paternity arising under section 69q of the family law act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 432">tribunal not governed by strict rules of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 432">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">partner (residence) (class bs) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">spouse of sponsor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">concern about paternity of sponsor's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">refusal to have dna test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">applicant not satisfy spousal requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">access to sponsor's children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">whether court order necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">applicant to file amended applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">adjournment necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 948">costs.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] MRTA 1636" id="cs0">The judgment of Srour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1228 (Moore J, 15 September 2006) held in relation to the child exception, that an applicant can have a right to custody as an incident of the statutory imposition of parental responsibility by operation of the Family Law Act 1975 in relation to a biological child and a sponsor can have a formal maintenance obligation arising through the operation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 432" id="cs1">Those provisions have been the subject of consideration by the Federal Court in three decisions being Yazbeck v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 980 ; (2002) 124 FCR 458 at [9] --- [10]; Fitch v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1673 ; and Srour v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1228 ; (2006) 155 FCR 441. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] MRTA 342" id="cs2">In addition, the Tribunal notes that arguably the visa applicant also satisfies the requirements of sub-subparagraph 820.221(3)(b)(ii)(A) and (E) at the time of decision. In Srour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1228 the Court held that an applicant can have a right to custody as an incident of the statutory imposition of parental responsibility by operation of the Family Law Act 1975 in relation to a biological child and that a sponsoring partner can have a formal maintenance obligation, by operation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 . Consequently, an applicant can meet the requirement in sub-subparagraph 820.221(3)(b)(ii)(A) to have custody of the child and a sponsoring partner can meet the requirement in sub-subparagraph 820.221(3)(b)(i)(E) of having a 'formal maintenance obligation' in respect of the child by virtue of the general law obligations of a biological parent to his/her child, provided there is no Court order granting sole custody to the other parent. Further, in Fitch v MRT [2004] FCA 1673 Dowsett J's obiter comments suggest that 'access' was traditionally used to describe contact arrangements between a non-custodial parent and his or her child and that 'access' in sub- subparagraph 820.221(3)(b)(ii)(A) contemplated some form of continuing access, rather than one previous incident of contact [at 31]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 948" id="cs3">There's a reference to access in paragraph 16, a misdirection in relation to 6, the child of whom both the applicant and its sponsor have access, custody or orders under the Family Law Act , whereas the argument today is quite different. Then 17 deals with custody, not the question of access. A reference to Srour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1228 ; 155 FCR 441 which deals with the question of custody and then 18 and 19 are different points which don't appear to be pursued today, which is that it's sufficient for the husband and wife to regard the child as a child of the marriage and then that the child regards the father and mother as her parents, and then the foreshadowing of Family Court orders to that effect...The way in which the case was run before the Tribunal...was...on the basis that the parties were in a genuine relationship but had run into difficulties and had separated but were intending to resume...so the case that was being put to the Tribunal is entirely different to the case that is being put to the Court today. The submission today concentrates on the meaning of the word "access" or on the question of access, not the joint custody aspect of the subregulation. The Minister responded to the contentions.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] MRTA 1532" id="cs4">The Tribunal refers to Srour v MIMA [2006] FCA 1228 where Moore J followed the reasoning of Dowsett J in Fitch v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1673 and accepted that by operation of the Family Law Act 1975 a person in the applicant's position has custody or joint custody of a biological child without the need for further orders by a Court. Further a person in the sponsor's position has a formal maintenance obligation through the operation of the Family Law Act 1975 and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 . Moore J noted:

 It may be accepted that this approach would result in the satisfaction of some of the relevant criteria in all circumstances where a visa applicant and the sponsor had a child in respect of whom Australian law operated. If that is an inconvenient or unintended result then the Regulations can be amended (at [57]).

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] MRTA 790" id="cs5">The Tribunal refers to Srour v MIMA [2006] FCA 1228 where Moore J followed the reasoning of Dowsett J in Fitch v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1673 and accepted that by operation of the Family Law Act 1975 a person has custody or joint custody of a biological child without the need for further orders by a Court. Further a person in the sponsor's position has a formal maintenance obligation through the operation of the Family Law Act 1975 and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 . Moore J noted:

 It may be accepted that this approach would result in the satisfaction of some of the relevant criteria in all circumstances where a visa applicant and the sponsor had a child in respect of whom Australian law operated. If that is an inconvenient or unintended result then the Regulations can be amended (at [57]).

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] MRTA 646" id="cs6">The Tribunal refers to Srour v MIMA [2006] FCA 1228 where Moore J followed the reasoning of Dowsett J in Fitch v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 1673 and accepted that by operation of the Family Law Act 1975 a person in the applicant's position has custody or joint custody of a biological child without the need for further orders by a Court.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] MRTA 485" id="cs7">That said, the Tribunal understands that in Srour v MIMA [2006] FCA 1228 , the court was satisfied that relevant obligations to a child would be established where a visa applicant and sponsor have a child in respect of whom Australian law (ie the Family Law Act , the Child Support (Assessment) Act , and the common law) operated.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] MRTA 431" id="cs8">Most recently, Moore J in Srour v MIMIA [2006] FCA 1228 (15 September 2006) took the view that, while the approach of neither Sunberg J (in Yazbeck ) nor Dowsett J (in Fitch) is plainly or clearly wrong, Dowsett J's decision in Fitch, being the more recent, is the judgement on which decision makers would base their decisions and in his view, Dowsett's reasoning is marginally more compelling .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CHILD SUPPORT (ASSESSMENT) ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l1">CHILD SUPPORT (ASSESSMENT) ACT 1989 - SECT 3 Duty of parents to maintain their children</title>
<title id="l2">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l3">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 61B Meaning of parental responsibility</title>
<title id="l4">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 61C Each parent has parental responsibility (subject to court orders)</title>
<title id="l5">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 61D Parenting orders and parental responsibility</title>
<title id="l6">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 64B Meaning of parenting order and related terms</title>
<title id="l7">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 66C Principles--parents have primary duty to maintain</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l11">FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l13">MAINTENANCE ACT 1965 - SECT 15 15 Court may order unmarried mother to maintain child</title>
<title id="l14">MAINTENANCE ACT 1965 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">representative proceedings under s 33c federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">each group member must have a claim against all respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">whether each group member must have the same claim against all respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">meaning of 'claim'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">claims must arise of out of similar or related circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">claims must give rise to substantial common issues of law or fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 138">judicial discretion to discontinue the action as a representative proceeding under s 33n</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">coleman v power  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">meaning of "threatening, abusive and insulting words" under vagrants, gaming and other offences act 1931 (q) (" vagrants act "), s 7(1)(d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">where appellant arrested for using insulting words to a person in a public place contrary to s 7(1)(d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether "insulting words" must be reasonably likely to provoke physical retaliation.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether, if vagrants act s 7(1)(d) invalid, appellant's arrest was lawfully authorised by the police powers and responsibilities act 1997 (q) (" police powers act "), s 35(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether convictions for obstructing and assaulting police are valid.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">relevance of international obligations assumed by the commonwealth after enactment of state statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether state acts to be interpreted to be consistent with international law of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">implied freedom of communication about government or political matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether vagrants act , s 7(1)(d) effectively burdened freedom of communication about government or political matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether s 7(1)(d) reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner which is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether s 7(1)(d) invalid to the extent that it penalised persons using insulting words where those words had a political content or purpose and the penalty constituted a burden on the freedom of political communication.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">implied freedom of communication about government or political matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 39">whether police powers act , s 35(1) invalid to the extent that it seeks to make lawful the arrest of a person on a charge under vagrants act , s 7(1)(d) for uttering insulting words in the course of making statements concerning political and governmental matters.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">remedies of beneficiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">mixing of money held on trust for several beneficiaries in bank account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">insufficiency of account to meet claims on it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">how insufficiency should be borne</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">whether clayton's case applicable to decide proprietary interests in money remaining in account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator of company which held money of several beneficiaries in trust account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator's responsibility concerning distribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">whether clayton's case applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">banking and financial institutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">banker and customer and business of banking generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">present role of clayton's case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator's application for directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">application concerning one question in which representative of affected class appointed, and concerning other questions where no representative of affected persons appointed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">who bound by decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">money paid into trust account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">whether trust created</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">effect of first instance decision altered on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">decisions of english court of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">effect of judge's decision about legal rights arising in a factual situation which he has held does not exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.28">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.29">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.30">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator of company which is trustee of assets, and has other assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.31">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">when liquidator's costs paid from assets subject of security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.32">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">when liquidator's costs payable from trust assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">representative proceedings under pt iva federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether s 33c satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether substantial common issues of law or fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">importance of compliance with s 33h in specifying common questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">operation of s 33c to claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether common questions determined by reference to findings which might be made at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether merger of questions under s 33c and s 33n</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">operation of s 33n in relation to disposition of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether in interests of justice to order discontinuance under s 33n</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether inappropriate for claims to be pursued in representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether issues will be controversial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether extent of findings possible relevant to order under s 33n</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether relevant to consider evidence in other claims rendered unnecessary by findings in representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">what findings on causation possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether application premature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">relevance of procedure in determining common questions prior to discontinuing as representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">effect of determination of risk of injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">effect of determination whether conduct misleading and deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether costs of representative proceeding greater</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether substantial number of non-common issues sufficient for order of discontinuance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">relevance of case management to assessment of representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">objects of representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">observations on excessive interlocutory proceedings in group proceedings  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether costs of representative proceedings greater than costs of separate proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">evidence necessary to establish</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">relevance to order of discontinuance of representative proceeding under s 33n federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">scaffolding and lifts (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">power to make regulations relating to safeguards and measures to be taken for securing safety and health of workers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">validity of regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">sufficiency of specification of manner of carrying out work or measures to be taken</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">scaffolding and lifts act, 1912-1960 (n.s.w.), s. 22 (2) (g) (v)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">scaffolding and lifts regulations, reg. 73 (1) (2) (3).**  precedents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">decision of high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">binding force on supreme court of a state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1966] HCA 67">apparent inconsistency with later reasoning of privy council.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">motor vehicle insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">insured's duty of disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">misrepresentation by insured</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">duty of disclosure under s 21 of the insurance contracts act 1984 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">proposal for policy of insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">proposed form contained question about all cancellations of license and a limited question concerning convictions and offences in prior 3 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">whether limitation applied to specific question in proposal form as to any cancellations of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">alleged ambiguity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">non disclosure of cancellation of driver's licence more than 3 years earlier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">whether failure by insured to comply with duty of disclosure or misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">whether ambiguity or waiver by insurer of further compliance by insured  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">exclusions in policy of insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">insurance claim for indemnity value of car arising from motor vehicle accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">exclusion of liability where the driver is "under the influence of intoxicating liquor"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">meaning of "under the influence of intoxicating liquor"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">question of fact and degree based on the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">exclusion of liability where driver had a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit in the period up to 2 hours after the occurrence of the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">whether s 37(5) of road transport (safety and management) act 1999 (nsw) rendered exclusion void  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">s 37(2) of the road transport (safety and management) act 1999 (nsw) made result of blood analysis under div 4 inadmissible as evidence for the purposes of any contract of insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">sample of blood received by analyst in container with broken seal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">whether result of analysis of blood inadmissible for all purposes, or capable of being evidence that the driver's blood contained a particular level of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.23">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">effect on person of level of alcohol in blood not self-evident from result of analysis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.24">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">held: result was evidence only of the blood alcohol level not of how level of alcohol affected particular driver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.25">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">results of analysis not made inadmissible by s 37  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.26">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.27">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">discretion to reject blood analysis results under s 135 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.28">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">whether probative value of analysis substantially outweighed by the danger that it was misleading or unfairly prejudicial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.29">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">possibility of tampering with sample with seal broken when received by analyst not excluded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.30">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">requirement for a seal precaution for criminal proceedings under road transport (safety and management) act 1999 (nsw) for the purpose of protecting accused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.31">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">certificate relevant in civil proceeding as evidence of the result of analysis of the driver's blood</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.32">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">concentration of alcohol in driver's blood sample could only be proved by analysis  precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.33">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">ratio decidendi and obiter dicta</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.34">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">ratio decidendi is general rule of law propounded as the reason for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.35">citing from="[2010] FCA 482">remarks not necessary to the decision do not form part of its ratio and are obiter dicta</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">section 33n of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">whether proceedings should continue as representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">'substantial common issues of law or fact' exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">interests of justice and efficiency best served by representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">proceedings should remain as representative proceedings  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">section 86a(4) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">whether proceedings should be transferred from local court of new south wales to the federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">cause of action under division 1 of part v of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 445">proceedings should be transferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">pre-action discovery against potential parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether the respondents may have a cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether pre-action discovery should be refused because the proposed action would be struck out as an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether the respondents made reasonable enquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether the appellants had or are likely to have or have had possession of documents that may assist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether the discretion to order discovery should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">rules of the supreme court 1971 (wa) o 26a r 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">turns on own facts  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether orders appealed from are interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">whether leave to appeal should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">supreme court act 1935 (wa) s 60(1)(f)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">citing from="[2009] WASCA 61">turns on own facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">power to treat complaint as withdrawn where misconceived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">review of tribunal's decision to treat complaint as withdrawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">soldier absent without leave at date of death</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">member of superannuation scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">death benefit not payable to spouse where member absent without leave unless absence due to sufficiently mitigating circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">determination by tribunal that those circumstances existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">interest for delay in payment of benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">date from which interest runs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">whether death of member or determination of tribunal  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">decision based on absence of power in tribunal to award interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">judge then said that even if the tribunal had power, the requirements for its exercise were not made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">whether a second reason for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">whether obiter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">citing from="[2008] FCA 939">degrees of obiter</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 482" id="cs0">The insured argued that the views of the majority in McCarney 16 MVR 34 on s 4E(13) were part of the ratio decidendi based on what Finkelstein J said in McBride v Monzil [2007] FCA 1947 ; (2007) 164 FCR 559 at 562-563 [6] - [7]. I do not understand his Honour to have said that where a court or a majority of judges expresses a ground for the orders made but goes on to express a view on other matters argued that were not stated to be essential to the orders, that those view form part of the ratio. Such a conclusion is contrary to the authorities in the High Court to which I have referred.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 445" id="cs1">In McBride v Monzie Pty Ltd and Others [2007] FCA 1947 ; (1997) 164 FCR 559 Finkelstein J at [21] repeated the statement he made in Bright v Femcare Ltd and Another (2003] [2002] FCAFC 243 ; 195 ALR 574 at 606 and said:

 I said in that case that if the applicants and the group members were not permitted to bring a group claim it was likely that many of them would not pursue an individual claim because the potential gain would not justify incurring the risk of costs. I said that in that sense it would be contrary to the interests of justice to make an order under s 33N. This is an even stronger case, due to the quantum of the individual damages claims, where stopping the group proceeding would work a serious injustice.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] WASCA 61" id="cs2">41 However, this statement must be read in the light of the doctrine of stare decisis or the rule of precedent which is that a lower court should follow decisions of higher courts and that intermediate courts should follow earlier decisions of its own, and those of courts of coordinate jurisdiction, unless they are plainly wrong. The 'decision' which has to be followed is the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision: McBride v Monzie Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1947 ; (2007) 164 FCR 559 [4] - [6]; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding  Co Ltd [2000] FCA 316 ; (2000) 97 FCR 524 [148]. The ratio is the reason why the court made the order that it did in the resolution of a dispute between parties: Bristol-Myers [148] - [149]. The traditional view is that obiter dictum does not have to be followed. See Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718. This may have to be qualified in relation to High Court decisions. See Farah Constructions [134].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 939" id="cs3">20 In McBride v Monzie Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1947 Finkelstein J said at [6]:
 The ratio of a case is the ruling on a point of law upon which the judge acts to reach his (or her) conclusion: Cross  Harris, Precedent in English Law (4th ed, 1990) at 72. If a judge gives two or more alternative reasons for reaching his (or her) decision each reason is part of the ratio ... Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co v F H Faulding  Co Ltd [2000] FCA 316 ; (2000) 97 FCR 524 , 570-571. There may be some cases where the judge gives additional reasons but indicates that he does not wish them to be part of the ratio and is merely wanting to have his views recorded for the benefit of those who may later be required to consider the point. In that event, what the judge says is not part of the ratio: Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd [1957] 2 QB 1 , 25. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 33C Commencement of proceeding</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 33N Order that proceeding not continue as representative proceeding where costs excessive etc.</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l5">Fair Trading Act 1999 - SECT 11 Meaning of generic terms in Australian Consumer Law for purposes of this jurisdiction</title>
</legistitles>
</case>