Ajinomoto v NutraSweet - Inventive Step and Costs

The Full Court has recently handed down judgment in a patent case concerning inventive step in Ajinomoto Co Inc v NutraSweet Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 34: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2008/34.html?query=%5eAjinomoto
The case provides a clearer understanding of the evidence required to satisfy s7(3) of the Patents Act (1990).

The costs judgment was also handed down recently (8 April) and provides an interesting point in relation to how costs may be apportioned where varying grounds of invalidity are sought. Relevantly, the Full Court said at [4]: “Thus, despite the Court adopting Ajinomoto’s construction of s 7(3), Ajinomoto failed to show that the patent satisfied inventive step, since blending was known in Australia at the priority date of the patent. JVMB is distinguishable. There the patentee was successful regarding inventive step. Here, Ajinomoto was not. The s 7(3) point was but an integer of an unsuccessful attempt to establish inventive step.” See: Ajinomoto Co Inc v NutraSweet Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 55: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2008/55.html?query=%5eAjinomoto