Groundprobe Pty Ltd and Another v Reutech Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others

The first appellant, Groundprobe Pty Ltd, was the proprietor of South African patent 2012/08400 entitled 'Work Area Monitor', with the second appellant as licensee. The patent related to a mine slope monitoring system using radar and interferometry, mounted on a motorised automobile vehicle. The appellants instituted infringement proceedings against the respondents, alleging that the respondents’ MSR 060V and MSR 120V slope monitoring systems infringed various product and method claims of the patent. The respondents admitted infringement but counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court of the Commissioner of Patents upheld the counterclaim, finding all claims invalid for lack of inventive step. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the respondents pursued revocation solely on the ground that the patent lacked an inventive step, contending that mounting an existing radar system on a motor vehicle rather than a trailer was obvious in light of the prior art.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, and the revocation of the patent was upheld.

The case reaffirms South African patent law principles on obviousness and inventive step, emphasising that mere adaptation of known technology to an analogous use does not qualify for patent protection. It confirms that patent claims must disclose a genuine inventive advance over the prior art and illustrates the application of the structured obviousness enquiry by the Supreme Court of Appeal.