Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd

Ausplow (Pty) Ltd, the plaintiff in the court a quo, was the proprietor of South African Patent No. 95/0812 relating to improvements in seeding machinery used for planting seeds in untilled soil. The patent claimed a seeding assembly incorporating, among other elements, a seeding tube, a closing tool, mounting means allowing height adjustment, and ground‑engaging means. Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd was sued for patent infringement. Northpark denied infringement and challenged the validity of the patent, counterclaiming for its revocation on the grounds that the invention lacked novelty, did not involve an inventive step, and was unclear. In support of revocation, Northpark relied primarily on prior‑art United States patents, particularly the Dreyer patent, which disclosed substantially similar seeding machinery. The Court of the Commissioner of Patents dismissed the defences and counterclaim, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The orders of the Court of the Commissioner of Patents were set aside. The infringement action was dismissed, and the defendant’s counterclaim for revocation of South African Patent No. 95/0812 was granted. The revocation order was made provisional to allow the patentee one month to apply for amendment of the patent under section 68 of the Patents Act, failing which the revocation would become fully operative.

The case is significant for South African patent law as it reinforces the strict approach to the requirement of an inventive step and cautions against relying on minor or obvious distinctions over the prior art to sustain patent validity. It confirms that novelty alone is insufficient and that courts will closely scrutinise whether any distinguishing feature represents a genuine, non‑obvious technical advance. The judgment also affirms the application of established tests for obviousness and the permissibility of combining multiple prior‑art documents when assessing inventiveness.