E.I Dupont De Nemours and Company v DowElanco

Case [1994] APO 45


official notice

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Application    :    No. 626551 in the name of E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY

Title:    Tablet Formulations of Pesticides

Action:    A request by DOWELANCO to amend the Statement of Grounds and Particulars under regulation 5.9 and an objection by E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY.

Decision:    Issued                   . 

Abstract:    Request to amend the Statement of Grounds and Particulars allowed.  Directions that certain particulars are not to be available to the opponent to argue at the substantive opposition hearing. 

patents act 1990

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Re:Patent Application No. 626551 by E.I DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, opposition thereto by DOWELANCO, and request under regulation 5.9(1) to amend a statement of grounds and particulars.

BACKGROUND

Application 626551 was filed on 17 May 1989 under the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty as PCT/US89/02072.  That application was published under the PCT as WO 90/00007, and in Australia was allocated the application number of 36911/89.  The application entered the national phase of processing on 28 December 1990, having undergone Preliminary Examination under the PCT.  The application was advertised accepted on 6 August 1992, and on 6 November 1992 DowElanco filed a notice of opposition.

On 7 December 1992 the opponent applied for an extension of time of one month (from 6 December 1992 to 6 January 1993) to serve the statement of grounds and particulars.(The statement was served on 5 January 1993).  DowElanco objected on 18 January 1993 and the matter was heard in Melbourne on 18 March 1993.  By written decision dated 19 April 1993 the delegate of the Commissioner allowed the extension of time and directed that the 3 months period for serving evidence in support was to commence at the date of that decision.

By letter dated 17 June 1993, DuPont requested the opponent to provide further and better particulars and advised that they would object to any application for extension of time beyond 19 July 1993 to serve evidence in support.  On 14 July 1993, DowElanco filed a request to amend the statement of grounds and particulars and this was followed by the filing on 19 August 1993 of a request to file a further amended statement of grounds and particulars.

On 20 July 1993 the opponent filed an application for extension of time of 3 months from 19 July 1993 to 19 October 1993 within which to serve evidence in support.  DuPont objected and the matter was heard in Canberra on 18 October 1993.  The request by DuPont for further and better particulars was deferred until after the request for an extension of time was decided. 

By written decision dated 19 November 1993 the delegate of the Commissioner allowed an extension of time up to 15 September 1993, to allow the service of evidence in support given to the applicant and the Patent Office prior to the hearing, and directed that the 3 months period for serving…

Details
AGLC
E.I Dupont De Nemours and Company v DowElanco [1994] APO 45
Case
[1994] APO 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v DowElanco involved a patent application (No. 626551) filed by E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, which DowElanco opposed. The dispute centred on DowElanco's request to amend its Statement of Grounds and Particulars under Regulation 5.9 of the Patents Act, to which E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company objected. The court had to determine whether the request should be allowed and whether certain particulars should be disallowed from being used in the substantive opposition hearing. The court examined whether DowElanco had complied with the Commissioner's directions to provide further and better particulars in the Statement of Grounds and Particulars, and whether the proposed amendments were prejudicial to E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company. The court found that DowElanco had not reasonably complied with the Commissioner's directions, resulting in numerous deficiencies in the proposed amendments. As a result, the court allowed the request to amend the Statement of Grounds and Particulars, but directed that certain particulars not be available to the opponent to argue at the substantive opposition hearing. Additionally, the court awarded costs against DowElanco.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.