High Court of Australia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
—-HILL S-HOI ST. $ (MANUFACTURING) PROPRIEFARY LIMITED
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
/f 2.
Judgment delivered at__ggpeey —— —— ___ on... SHORSDAY y-17th-DECEMBER-1964._
'A. C. Brooks, Government Printer, Melbourne ©.7639/60
mn
Appeal in each ease dismissed with costs. Cross appeal dismissed.
We
(2 appeaLs)
Ve
DAVID A (2 appeals)
The plaintiff, the proprietor of two letters patent, ono dated 25th July 1955, and numbered 213610, and the other dated 15th May 1957, and numbered 221120, sued the defendant in this Court for infringenent of each of the letters patent. Both were for improvements in and relating to rotary clothes hoists. There is now no question as to the infringe- ment by the defendants but the validity of the letters patent is challenged. The justice who hearé the case found that in the case of each of the letters what was claimed as the inventive step was obvious anc that for that reason each of the letters patent wes invalid. The sole question in this appeal is whether or not the processes of manufacture claimed in the specifications of the letters patent laeked novelty or were obvious. :
His Honour in his judgsent fully and adequately described the nature of the retary clothes hoists which the appellant had for some time been engaged in manufacturing prior to the grant of the firet of these letters patent. His Honour fully ceseribed the experience which the appellant had had with its retary clothes hoists, anc the problems whieh thair use had developed. He also fully deseribed the invention claimed by the appellant in each of the letters patent. There is no neod for me to repeat any of these descriptions which I adopt for the purposes of thia judgment.
I turn firet to the question of the validity of the letters patent No. 213610. The appellant, in common, no doubt, with other manufacturers of like rotary clothes hoists, hac found that the absence of any positive sechanism for retracting the moving ecoluan of the hoist, or as I will bereafter
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