Reid v Commissioner of Patents [1915] HCA 42

OF AUSTRALIA. 261

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

REID . a ' i ' " : . . APPELLANT; AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS . . RESPONDE!

THE KING

AGAINST

THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS.

Ex parte REID.

Patent—A pplication—Refusal by Commissioner to accept-—Grounds of refusal— 1. C, or A. Application informal—A ppeal to High Court—A pplication under intercolonial 1915, arrangements—Amendment—Mandamus—Patents Act 1903-1909 (No. 21 of = —— 1903—No. 17 of 1909), secs. 32, 33, 46, 47, 121, 122—Patents Regulations Mutpourne, 1912 (Statutory Rules 1912, No. 76), regs. 4, 31; Sched, 2, Form A6, May 28;

'The applicant having applied in New Zealand for protection of an invention V™"* '+ 7+ 17-

applied for a patent for the same invention pursuant to secs. 121 and 122 of Grittith C., the Patents Act 1903-1909, the application being in accordance with Form A6 gayan Duty JJ. in Schedule 2 to the Patents Regulations 1912, and he lodged with the appli- cation a copy of the complete specification which had been lodged in New 4 Zealand. The Commissioner refused to accept the application on the ground . that a copy of the provisional specification which had been lodged in New Zealand did not also accompany the application. The Commissioner sub- ; sequently refused an application for leave to amend the application by

converting it into an ordinary application for a patent under secs. 32 and 33.

Held, by Grifith C.J. and Gavan Dufy J. (Isaacs J. dissenting), that the refusal to accept the application was not a refusal from which an appeal lay to the High Court under secs. 46 and 47, and that an appeal did not lie

H.C. or A.

1915. eae Rem v. Commus- SIONER OF Parents.

HIGH COURT (1915.

from the refusal to allow the amendment, but that a mandamus should go to the Commissioner directing him to proceed with the hearing of the application for a patent.