JANTZEN (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED V. PATERSON LAING & BRUCE 79/1937 79/1937

HE. J. Greer, Government Printer, Melbourne.

P IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

Judgment delivered at _ on, Age a. o 1936 1D) eed OZ!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) No. 79 of 1937. : EG EStRY ) H

uu} SOUTH WALES

1s

OW-APPRAL from the Supreme court of New

South Wales in Equity

JANTZEN (AUSTRALIA) LIMI?ED

(Plaintiff) Appellant.

AND PATERSON LATING & BRUCE LIMITED

(Defendant) Respondent.

Before their Honours, The Chief Justice,Mr.Justice Starke and Mr.Justice Dixon.

Wednesday the sixth day of April One thousand nine hundred and

thirty eight. t

THIS APPEAL COMING ON TO BE HEARD the fifth day of April One thousand)

| nine hundred and thirty eight and this day WHEXKUPON AND UPON i

READING the Transcript record of proceedings transmitted to this \ Court by the Acting Deputy kegistrar in Equity of the supreme Court | of New South Wales AND UPON HEARING what was alleged by Mr.G.8. Thomas and Mr.D.F.Kelly of Counsel on behalf of the .abovenamed | Appellant AND by lir.C. A.Weston of King's Counsel and Mr.A.C.Gain of | Counsel for, the abovenamed Respondent THIS COURT DOTH ORDER that

the Appeal herein be and the same is herehy dismissed and this Court doth further order that it be referred to the proper officer of this Court to tax and certify the costs of the Respondent of and incident.

al to this Appeal and that such costs when so taxed and allowed be

peid by the Appellant to the Respondent or to Mr.Kevin John Tracy

its Solicitor unon service of a cony of the Certificate of Taxation.

BY THE couRT

DISTRICT REGTSPRAR,

JANTSEN (AUSTRALIA) LTD v PATERSON LAING & BRUCE

QRAL JUDGMENT.

I agree. This case t another example of "@» type of

difficulty in patent litigation which occurs with increasing frequency. An article of common use is made and is established upon the market as useful in the sense that it is capable of extensive and profitable sale. Research shows jthat nothing exactly like it has- previously appeared and that some inte}ligent appreciation of the demands of the community was necessary in order to provide it and then upon that basis an application is made for a patent. Difficulty is felt in denying its novelty and difficulty is felt in denying that some ingenuity was required in order to provide it ; but not withstanding that,it is,I think, true that in most of such cases no patentable subject matter is exhibited. Old cases provide probably the best authorities in dealing with such a description of alleged invention,