Eimco Corporation v Commissioner of Patents

Eimco Corporation (the applicant) sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents (the respondent) refusing to grant a patent for an invention relating to a continuous mining machine. The dispute concerned whether the invention, as described in the applicant's complete specification, was a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the invention constituted a "manner of manufacture" for the purposes of patentability under Australian law. This required the Court to consider the scope of the term "manner of manufacture" and its application to inventions that involved mechanical processes and apparatus for the extraction of minerals.

Kitto J, delivering the judgment of the Court, held that the invention was indeed a manner of manufacture. His Honour applied the established principles that a patentable invention must involve the application of human ingenuity to physical substances or forces to produce a physical result. The Court found that the applicant's machine, by its mechanical operation, transformed raw material (coal) into a different physical state (broken coal) and facilitated its removal, thereby satisfying the requirement of producing a physical effect or result. The invention was not merely an abstract idea or a method of doing business, but a practical and useful mechanical contrivance.