High Court of Australia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
-"MENTMORE- MANUFACTURING Coy — LIMITED v. BGE-LINTPED ~
ORIGINAL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MENTMORE MANUFACTURING CO. LIMITED Ve
ORDER that the defendant be restrained from infringing by himself, his servants or agents Claims 1 and 3 of the plaintiff's letters patent No. 209869 during the continuance thereof or any extension thereof. ORDER that the defendant make and file a sufficient affidavit stating what articles were on the date of this judgment in his possession or power made in infringement of the said claims and accounting for the same. ORDER that the defendant within fourteen days after the filing of the said affidavit deliver up to the plaintiff or destroy or render non- infringing the articles which by such affidavit appear to be in his possession or power.
Reserve for further consideration the question of what order should be made requiring the defendant to pay damages or account for profits.
Further ORDER that the defendant's counterclaim be dismissed. Defendant to pay to the plaintiff its costs
of the suit and of the counterclaim.
MENTMORE MANUFACTURING CO. LIMITED Ve
B. & F, PTY. LIMITED
JUDGMENT TAYLOR J.
MENTMORE MANUFACTURING CO. LIMITED
Ve
B. & F, PIY, LIMITED
The plaintiff, which is a company incorporated in England, is the registered proprietor of letters patent of the Commonwealth of Australia numbered 209,869 and it seeks to restrain the defendant, a company incorporated in New South Wales, from infringing the same. The letters patent relate to "Improvements in or relating to writing instruments having a retractable writing point" and the various claims have as their priority date 6th May 1953.
It should be added that the plaintiff has expressly limited its title to relief to infringements and threatened infringements of claims 1 and 3 as set out in the complete specification. By its defence the defendant denies the infringements alleged and counter-claims for revocation of the letters patent upon a number of grounds. Particulars of the defendant's objections were delivered in accordance with s. 117 of the Patents Act 1952-1960 but at the hearing some of these objections were abandoned or not supported in any way. It is sufficient at the moment to say that objection 6 - "that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim, is not useful" - was abandoned whilst objection 1
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