Federal Court of Australia
eer ween eae
oe BNE ha
pa Be ot
tN ah cane
Sa ih
CATCHWORDS_
Patents - application for convention patent ~ refusal of
request for extension of time - whether s.160(2) to extension of time specified in s.141(1).
PatentsAct 1952 (Cth.) ss.141(1), 160(2)
AB SCANIAINVENTOR v. THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
No. V.G. 51 of 1981
Fox A.C.d., Franki and Northrop JJ.
26 June 1981,
Melbourne.
applicable
wee mae men a
BeNG Epa
Bins a6
in
'
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
No. V.G. 51 of 1981
BETWEEN: AB SCANIAINVENTOR Applicant ¢ AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS Respondent. ORDER
JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Fox A.C.J., Franki and Northrop JJ.
DATE OF ORDER: 26 June 1981
WHERE MADE: Melbourne.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Question (a) read as follows:
"Whether the provisions of Section 160(2) of the Patents Act 1952 are applicable to an extension of the time specified in Section 141(1) of the said Act for making a Convention application for a patent"
and Question (b) read as follows:
"Whether the Respondent has power under Section 160(2) of the Patents Act 1952 to extend the time specified in Section 141(1) of the said Act for making a Convention application for a patent"
are answered "Yes",
ay
Bites.»
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) ) VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. V.G. 51 of 1981 ) )
GENERAL DIVISION
BFTWEEN: AB SCANIAINVENTOR
Applicant
' AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF a PATFNTS
Respondent
CORAM: Fox A.C.J., Franki and Northrop JJ.
26 June 1981
RFASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FOX A.C.J., FRANKI AND NORTHROP JJ.
We are hearing a special case stated by a Judge of this
Court in an application under the Administrative Decisions
(Judicial Review) Act 1977. There was a decision by a delegate
of the Commissioner of Patents made on 6 March 1981 in which, to put it shortly, he refused a request by the applicant for an extension of time under s.160(2) of the Patents Act 1952 ("the Act") within which to make an application for a convention patent. The decision referred to an earlier published decision of the delegate and by reference to that and to the form in which the decision sought to be reviewed is expressed, it is apparent that the view taken was that power did not exist in s.160(2) to comply with the request. The refusal of the request for the
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate