Lufft v Weiss

The appellants, Stanley Ernst Lufft and the executors of the will of Ernst Alfred Paul Lufft, opposed an application for a patent relating to rotary intaglio printing presses. The Commissioner granted the patent, and the opponents appealed to the High Court. The respondent raised an objection that the appellants lacked the necessary locus standi to appeal, arguing they were not "entitled to be heard in opposition to the grant" as required by section 59 of the *Patents Act 1903-1935*. The appellants were agents for a foreign company that manufactured printing presses, including rotary intaglio presses, and had facilitated the sale of only two such presses in Australia over many years.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellants, as agents acting on commission, possessed a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the patent application to be considered persons "entitled to be heard in opposition to the grant" under section 59 of the *Patents Act 1903-1935*. This determination was crucial for establishing the competency of their appeal from the Commissioner's decision.

Latham C.J. and Dixon J., in the majority, held that the appeal was incompetent. They reasoned that to be entitled to be heard, an opponent must demonstrate a real, definite, and substantial interest that is likely to be prejudiced by the grant of the patent. Drawing on established precedent, including *In re Wheeler's Application* and *Australian Radio Manufacturers' Patents Association Ltd. v. Neutrodyne Pty. Ltd.*, they concluded that the appellants' interest as agents, deriving remuneration from commissions on sales of their principals' products, was too indirect and insubstantial. Starke J., dissenting, found that the appellants had a sufficient business interest, given their long-standing involvement in supplying printing presses and trade accessories, to warrant being heard.

The majority of the Court upheld the objection to locus standi, finding that the appellants had not demonstrated a sufficient interest to be entitled to be heard in opposition to the grant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.