High Tech Auto Tools Pty Limited v Ferocem Pty Limited Summary

official notice

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Application : No. 621447 in the name of HIGH-TECH AUTO TOOLS PTY LIMITED

Title: An apparatus and method for cleaning electronic fuel injectors

Action: Extension of time to serve evidence in support of an opposition under Section 59 of the Patents Act 1990 by FEROCEM PTY LIMITED

Decision: Issued .
Abstract: Extension of time allowed to serve evidence in support already filed in the Patent Office.

patents act 1990

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Re:Application No. 621447 by HIGH-TECH AUTO TOOLS PTY LIMITED, Opposition by FEROCEM PTY LIMITED, and Objection to an Extension of Time to serve evidence-in-support.

Background

Patent application No. 621447 by High-Tech Auto Tools Pty Limited (High-Tech) was advertised accepted under the Patents Act 1990 on 12 March 1992. As a consequence, the opposition is proceeding under Part V of the Patents Act 1952, together with the procedures of Chapter 5 of the Patent regulations 1991. On 6 October 1992, Ferocem Pty Limited (Ferocem) requested an extension of time from 6 October 1992 to 6 December 1992 to serve evidence-in-support. High-Tech objected to the extension.

A previous decision on this matter was reviewed by the Federal Court of Australia (Ferocemv Commissionerof Patents 1994 AIPC 91-057).

Following the decision of the Court, I have reconsidered the matter and will allow an extension of time for the evidence in support filed in the Patent Office on 16 December 1992 to be served. Indications are that this evidence was presented to the applicant on 7 December 1992.

The time for serving evidence in answer will commence from the date of this decision.

R.J. Sawyer
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Patent attorneys for the applicant: Davies Collison Cave, Sydney

Patent attorneys for the opponent: Spruson & Ferguson,
Sydney

CaseChat Overview and Summary

High-Tech Auto Tools Pty Limited sought an extension of time to serve evidence in support of an opposition under section 59 of the Patents Act 1990, filed against Ferocem Pty Limited's patent application No. 621447. The opposition was initiated following the acceptance of the patent application by the Commissioner of Patents on 12 March 1992. Ferocem applied for an extension to serve evidence-in-support from the initial deadline of 6 October 1992 to 6 December 1992, to which High-Tech objected. This matter had previously been reviewed by the Federal Court of Australia, and the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, R.J. Sawyer, reconsidered the application.

The legal issue at the heart of this case was whether Ferocem was entitled to an extension of time to serve evidence-in-support of its opposition to High-Tech's patent application. This involved an assessment of the circumstances surrounding the need for an extension and whether the application was made within a reasonable time frame, as per the provisions of the Patents Act 1990 and the relevant regulations.

In reviewing the matter, the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents considered the circumstances leading to Ferocem's request for an extension. The delegate noted that the evidence-in-support had already been filed with the Patent Office on 16 December 1992 and had been presented to the applicant on 7 December 1992. Given these factors, the delegate allowed the extension, enabling Ferocem to serve the evidence-in-support. The decision also stipulated that the time for serving evidence in answer would commence from the date of this decision.

The final order allowed Ferocem Pty Limited an extension of time to serve evidence-in-support of its opposition, with the time for serving evidence in answer to commence from the date of the decision. The decision was issued by R.J. Sawyer, acting as the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents, on behalf of both parties involved in the dispute.

High Tech Auto Tools Pty Limited v Ferocem Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established