VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 660 (10 June 2011)

You might have thought that an inventor, or other employee of a patent-owning company, would make a poor ‘impartial’ expert witness in a patent infringement case.
You might also have thought that a relatively senior academic who has ‘published books and papers on engineering design theory, engineering education, the innovation process, and mechanical equipment research and development’ would make an excellent expert witness.
However, if you thought either one – or both – of these things, then you would be sadly mistaken, at least in this case, and under the law as it stands in Australia.
This Federal Court decision, of
Justice Kenny, concerns a claim by VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (‘VIP’) that various claims of its Australian patent no. 2001235262 were infringed by B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd (‘BMW’). For its part, BMW counterclaimed that the patent was invalid on various grounds, including lack of
novelty and lack of
inventive step.
The patent is entitled ‘Variable-length Dip Tube for a Fluid Transfer Container’, and the specification states that the invention relates to ‘container apparatus and more particularly relates to a variable-length dip tube suitable for connection to a pump or valve at an opening of a container.’
The technology, however, is not the aspect of the case that interests us. Nor is the court’s entirely conventional application of the law relating to infringement and validity of the patent. We are interested in the court’s treatment of the evidence provided by expert witnesses for the two parties, which was ultimately wholly determinative of the findings that BMW had indeed infringed the VIP patent, and that the patent is valid.