Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited v Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-Operative Limited HC Auckland
COURT OR TRIBUNAL
High Court of New Zealand
DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)
23/03/2009
LITIGATION TYPE
Corporate Accountability
SUBJECT MATTER
Other
REVIEW TYPE
Judicial review
SUMMARY
(Excerpt from judgment)
[1] Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-operative Limited and Lincoln University have obtained a grant of patent relating to a soil treatment method. Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited appeals the decision granting the patent.
[2] The claimed invention relates to a method of applying the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD) to grazed pasture soil so as to reduce nitrate and cation leaching, reduce nitrous oxide emissions and increase pasture production. The main sources of nitrogen in New Zealand are fertilisers and urine from grazing animals. Nitrogen from these sources reaches the soil in the form of ammonium nitrogen. However, nitrosomas bacteria in the soil convert ammonium nitrogen to the nitrate form in a process called nitrification. The consequences of nitrification are the leaching of nitrate from the soil and emission of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. The result is less plant growth and pollution of air and groundwater. Nitrification inhibitors such as DCD act on the nitrosomas bacteria in the soil to prevent or slow down the nitrification process.
[3] Ravensdown claims that the conventional use of DCD has been limited to application in conjunction with the nitrogen source. It says that its method of general application of DCD to grazed pasture is new because it targets the soil and thereby responds to all sources of nitrogen, especially the random deposits from animal urine. It says, further, that DCD has not previously been used in this way to reduce nitrate/cation leaching and nitrous oxide emissions or to increase pasture growth.
[4] Ballance, however, asserts that there is nothing new or inventive in either Ravensdown’s method or claimed purposes. It asserts that the Ravensdown method was anticipated by prior publications and use, that it is obvious, and that it is not a proper subject matter for an invention in terms of the Patents Act 1953. 2009.
CASE DOCUMENTS
RELATED CASES
JUMP TO CASE: