MONIER INDUSTRIES LTD V. HUME PIPE CO. (AUSTRALIA) LTD.

oar

HL J. Green, Gort. Print, Melb.

NBD Feb te <

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

MONIER INDUSTRIES..LIMITED.

HUME. PIPE. COMPANY..(AUSTRALIA) LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

Judgment delivered at_.... MELBOURNE...

MONTER INDUSTRIES LIMITED.

Ve

HUME PIPE COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. LATHAM C.J. RICH J. STARKE J.

MONIER INDUSTRIES LIMITED.

Ve

HUME PIPE COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED.

REASONS FOR JUDG! . LATHAM C.J.

RICH J. STARKE J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Patents refusing an application by an applicant for a patent for leave to amend thecomplete specification. The application for a patent was opposed, the opposition was dismissed, and the opponent appealed to this Court. The Court made an order to the effect that the grant ought not to be made in respect of four claims, that it ought to be made in respect of two claims and that as to four other claims it ought not to be made "unless the respondent company", that is to say the applicant, "within two months applies for, and on such application obtains leave to amend the specification with regard to" these four claims, Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 8. The Deputy Commissioner refused to allow amendments for which application was made. Amendments were asked for in the body of the specification, as wéll as in the claims. An appeal is now before this Court from the decision of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to allow the amendments. Requirements in respect of amendments are set out in Sections 71 and 78 of the Patents Act. These requirements must be satisfied and, as it has been pointed out, the amendments themselves must be plain in meaning and not ambiguous: see Cowper v. Paper Sacks 1932 A.C. 709.

Regulation 102 provides that an opponent in amendment proceedings is limited to certain objections. It is not necessary in this case to determine whether Regulation 102 is valid or not, and the Court leaves that question open, because the whole matter