High Court of Australia
PULBROOK BROS. PTY. LIMITED
C. W. DONNEY & SON PTY. LIMITED
ORDER
Application for orders in terms of paragraphs 1
and 2 of the summons for directions refused.
Orders as sought in paragraphs 3 to 9 inclusive accordingly, substituting the figure 8 for the figure 6 in paragraph 4(a).
Order as sought in paragraph 10 accordingly substituting the figure 2 for the figure 3 in that paragraph.
Petitioner to pay respondent's costs of the summons.
PULBROOK BROS. PTY. LIMITED
C. W. DONNEY & SON PTY. LIMITED
JUDGMENT BARWICK C.J.
PULBROOK BROS, PTY. LIMITED
C. W. DONNEY & SON PTY. LIMITED
The petitioner (Pulbrook Bros. Pty. Limited) seeks revocation of letters patent No. 427,924 granted to C. W. Donney & Son Pty. Limited (the respondent) upon a number of grounds. The petitioner alleges that the respondent was not the assignee of the actual inventor of the device to which the letters patent relate; that the device was not novel in Australia at the priority date; that it was obvious and involved no inventive step and that the complete specificiation did not comply with s. 40 of the Patents Act, 1952 as amended (the Act). The respondent, by its statement of defence, puts all but formal matters in issue.
Upon a summons for directions in the suit, the petitioner seeks:
(i) An order for inspection of certain items and articles in the said interrogatories.
(ii) Orders with respect to drawings, photographs, models and apparatus.
The parties at my direction put their submissions in writing. Perusal of the documents thus filed indicates quite clearly the basic divergence between them and the basis upon which the petitioner seeks to support the majority and
significant items of the petitioner's interrogatories.
The petitioner has constructed the interrogatories it seeks to administer upon the theory that an applicant for a patent in Australia is bound to disclose to the Patent Office his whole knowledge of the prior art and also presumably the precise aspect of the claimed invention which is novel in relation to that prior art. This view the petitioner bases on certain Amercian authorities which are cited in 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