Costa v GR & IE Daking Pty Ltd

In the case of Costa v GR & IE Daking Pty Ltd, the parties were Dominic Victor Costa, the applicant and patentee of Petty Patent No. 623843, and GR & IE Daking Pty Ltd, the informant who filed a notice under section 28 alleging that Costa was not entitled to be granted the patent. The dispute centered around the invention of a boom conveyor loading apparatus used in vegetable picking, with claims of inventorship, prior use, and lack of novelty. The court had to decide the issues of inventorship, estoppel, prior use, and novelty of the claimed invention.

The court found that Costa and Joseph Gerardis were joint inventors of the invention, as Costa would not have made the machine without Gerardis providing the base requirements needed to overcome the identified problems with the Caretti machine. However, Gerardis' conduct was such that he was estopped from claiming that the invention was obtained from him, as he knowingly acceded to Costa applying for a patent in Costa's name only. The allegation of prior use was not made out, as any prior use was for reasonable trial and subject to the protection afforded by section 24(1) of the Patents Act 1990. Lastly, the lack of novelty based on a newspaper advertisement was not established, as the advertisement was manifestly inadequate for establishing lack of novelty.

In conclusion, the court granted the extension of the term of the petty patent and awarded costs against the informant, GR & IE Daking Pty Ltd. The decision highlights the importance of inventorship, estoppel, and the protection afforded by section 24(1) in patent disputes.