Bristol-myers Company v L'OREAL Summary

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Application No. 526329 for a Patent by BRISTOL‑MYERS COMPANY
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Opposition thereto under Section 59 by L'OREAL.

FINAL DECISION OF A SENIOR EXAMINER OF PATENTS:
In my decision in this matter dated 11 October 1988 I found that the specification did not comply with section 40 and I afforded the applicant the opportunity to propose amendments to overcome this defect. A request to amend was filed by the applicant within the time allowed and following examination action was advertised in the Official Journal on 5 January 1989. The opponent has not advised that it wishes to be further heard in respect of the section 59 opposition.
I am satisfied that the amendments remove the grounds for the earlier finding and I am of the opinion that there is no lawful ground of objection to the application and complete specification. Therefore I direct that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing.

(M. KENDALL)

Patent Attorney for the Applicant: Phillips, Ormonde & Fitzpatrick,
Melbourne

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bristol-Myers Company v L'Oreal, the dispute centred on the grant of a patent application by the Bristol-Myers Company, which L'Oreal opposed. The matter was heard by a senior examiner of patents, whose decision was to be considered by the relevant court. The applicant sought a patent for a particular product, and L'Oreal contested the application, arguing that it was not compliant with the requirements of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The court was tasked with determining whether the patent application met the necessary legal standards and if the opposition raised any valid objections.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the patent application's specification complied with the relevant statutory requirements, specifically section 40 of the Patents Act, and whether there were any lawful grounds to oppose the application. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's proposed amendments to the specification adequately addressed the identified issues and whether the opposition was validly maintained. The court's role was to review the specification, assess the amendments, and determine if the patent application could proceed to sealing.

The senior examiner of patents found that the original specification did not comply with section 40 but allowed the applicant to propose amendments to rectify the defect. The applicant filed an amended specification within the stipulated time, which the examiner deemed sufficient to overcome the earlier objections. L'Oreal did not seek further hearing on the opposition, leading the examiner to conclude that there were no lawful grounds for objection. Consequently, the examiner directed that the amended application and complete specification proceed to sealing. This decision was based on the examiner's satisfaction that the amendments appropriately addressed the issues raised, thereby meeting the requirements of the Patents Act.

The final orders of the senior examiner were that the patent application and complete specification, as amended, would proceed to sealing. This decision effectively resolved the opposition raised by L'Oreal and allowed the patent application by the Bristol-Myers Company to move forward.

Bristol-myers Company v L'OREAL

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established