ARTICLE
13 August 2025

Let's Make It A Date – Best Method And The Filing Date Of The Earliest Complete Application

KG
K&L Gates LLP

Contributor

At K&L Gates, we foster an inclusive and collaborative environment across our fully integrated global platform that enables us to diligently combine the knowledge and expertise of our lawyers and policy professionals to create teams that provide exceptional client solutions. With offices spanning across five continents, we represent leading global corporations in every major industry, capital markets participants, and ambitious middle-market and emerging growth companies. Our lawyers also serve public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations, and individuals. We are leaders in legal issues related to industries critical to the economies of both the developed and developing worlds—including technology, manufacturing, financial services, health care, energy, and more.
In the recent decision of NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887, Moshinsky J has provided welcomed clarity around the relevant...
Australia Intellectual Property

In the recent decision of NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 8871, Moshinsky J has provided welcomed clarity around the relevant date by which the best method known to the applicant is to be identified for divisional patent applications. Namely, the relevant date is the date from which the term of the patent is calculated. This means that for divisional patent applications, it is the filing date of the earliest complete or PCT application, not the individual filing date of each divisional application. And thus, it is at the time of filing the PCT application that the best method known to the applicant needs to be included in the specification.

Background

The best method requirement provides that a complete specification must disclose the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention.2 It is a powerful ground of revocation as failure to disclose the best method can invalidate the whole patent, making it a ground frequently pleaded by the alleged infringer.

This case involved three patents for car battery jump starters. NOCO was the patentee and the three patents were from the same family, each claiming an earliest priority date of 3 July 2014 based on the filing date of a PCT application. The filing dates of the patents were much later, being in 2020, 2021 and 2022. NOCO brought infringement proceedings against Brown & Watson International Pty Ltd (B&W) and B&W cross-claimed for invalidity. One of the invalidity grounds asserted was that of best method.

Best Method and the Relevant Date

On the question of best method, the key issue was what date is the relevant date at which the best method known to the patentee (NOCO) is to be assessed.3 The options were either:

  • The filing date the PCT application (3 July 2014) (NOCO's position); or
  • The filing date of each of the divisional patents (B&W's position),

with Moshinsky J holding that NOCO's position is to be preferred.

NOCO's position was that the knowledge requirement for best method should be assessed at the filing date of the PCT, which "is the first filed application in the claim of divisional applications and the date from which the term of each patent runs".4 NOCO relied on previous decisions of the Federal Court and Full Federal Court to support this decision, which Moshinsky J adopted5 and held the relevant date for the knowledge element of best method is that date of filing the PCT application (3 July 2014).

While NOCO submitted that the approach of the Court in Dometic Australia Pty Ltd v Houghton Leisure Products Pty Ltd was "plainly wrong",6 his Honour considered it was not necessary for him to form a view on this point.

Footnotes

1. https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2025/887.html

2. s 40(2)(a) Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

3. NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887 at [369]-[398].

4. Ibid at [375].

5. Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly & Co [2005] FCAFC 224.

6. NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887 at [375].

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More