Re NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken's Patent [No 2] [1967] HCA 53

High Court of Australia Windeyer J. Kitto, Taylor and Owen JJ. Re NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken's Patent [No 2] [1967] HCA 53

ORDER Petition dismissed. The petitioner to pay the Commissioner's costs, including reserved costs. Appeal dismissed. Order that the appellant pay the costs of the Commissioner of Patents of the appeal.

Cur. adv. vult.

1966, Sept. 5 Windeyer J. delivered the following written judgment:—

This is a petition for an extension, by way or re-grant, of the term of patent No. 146514 which expired on 15th March 1964. The petition is brought pursuant to ss. 90-94 of the Patents Act 1952 Cth on the ground of inadequate remuneration. I have already heard and dismissed an application for an extension of the same patent which was based upon loss resulting from war. In that case [Re N. V. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken's Patent [No. 1] [1] ] I dealt generally with the nature of the invention and described its uses. I shall not repeat all of that. I merely refer to what I said there as part of the material on which my conclusion in this matter is based.

1. (1966) 121 C.L.R. 70.

The invention in essence concerns the glass in glass-supported luminescent screens in cathode-ray tubes. It prevents or makes less rapid the discolouration of glass by its bombardment by electrons at high voltages. The claims in the specification are for a cathode-ray tube with a luminescent screen on a colourless glass support, the glass containing cerium and also certain specified chemical compounds in specified quantities. The special quality of the apparatus as thus claimed lies in the glass being of the specified composition.

If the projection method for television viewing had not been superseded by the direct viewing method, there would no doubt have been a considerable demand wherever television broadcasting existed for cathode-ray tubes made in accordance with the specification. But for domestic use direct viewing apparatus has, speaking generally, taken the place of apparatus in which the projection method is used. The deponent F. C. Beunke said in his affidavit of 24th June 1964, speaking of the situation throughout the world: