Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd [1977] HCA 23

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ. Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd [1977] HCA 23

ORDER Appeal allowed in so far as it relates to claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Australian Letters Patent No. 286171. Appeal otherwise dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed. Order of this Court (Jacobs J.) set aside in so far as it relates to claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 and in lieu thereof order that the respondents be restrained from infringing any of those claims, that the matter be remitted to a Justice of this Court to inquire as to the amount of damages suffered by the appellant by reason of the respondents' infringements of those claims, and that the respondents pay the appellant the amount so ascertained. The costs of the inquiry to be in the discretion of the Justice considering it. Respondents to pay the appellant's costs of the action including the counterclaim and of the appeal except in so far as each relates to the claims 10-13 of Australian Letters Patent No. 286171. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the cross-appeal. Appellant to pay the respondents' costs of so much of the action including the counterclaim and of the appeal as they relate to the said claims 10-13.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1977, May 4 Barwick C.J.

My consideration of this matter over the space of some months, interrupted as inevitably it has been due to the need to hear and consider other and more urgent matters, has led me to the conclusion that the appellant should succeed both as to the infringement of the process claim and as to the product claims in respect of the plastic tubular structure. In relation to the time taken to reach these conclusions and to express the reasons on which they are based, I should say that this Court, bearing in mind its other responsibilities, has become an inappropriate tribunal to try such cases as the present, or to hear and determine appeals therein involving as they do consideration of the detailed and particular facts and circumstances relating to inventions and to the infringement of patents. It seems to me that, in the field of industrial property generally, the energies of this Court ought in general to be reserved for the consideration and statement of matters of general principle which other courts with suitable jurisdiction should apply. As the relevant statutes now stand, it is almost inevitable that this Court is called upon in the area of industrial property to take the whole case in hand: it cannot limit its consideration to matters of general principle. Thus placed, delay in disposing of such cases is inescapable. It is time that other jurisdictional arrangements were legislatively made, both for the trial of such cases and for the hearing of appeals therein.