Mauri Brothers & Thomson (Aust.) Pty. Limited v. Containers Limited

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1955
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Patent Application No. 533257 in the Name of MAURI BROTHERS & THOMSON (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Opposition thereto by CONTAINERS LIMITED.

DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:
         In my decision in this matter dated 2 May 1988 I found that the opposition succeeded on the grounds of lack of novelty and non‑
compliance with section 40. I gave the applicant an opportunity to propose amendments to overcome these defects, a request to amend was lodged, and following examination, was advertised in the Official Journal on 3 November 1988. The request was not opposed and subsequently advertised as allowed on 2 March 1989.
         The opponent advised via its patent attorney that it did not wish to be further heard in the matter of the section 59 opposition.
         I am satisfied that the amendments remove the grounds for the earlier findings and I am now of the opinion that there is no lawful ground of objection to the application and complete specification. I thus direct that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing.

(J.L. ROVETA)

Patent attorneys for the applicant: Shelston Waters

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mauri Brothers & Thomson (Aust.) Pty Limited, the applicant, sought to patent a process for the production of containers, while Containers Limited opposed the application. The dispute came before a Supervising Examiner of Patents who had to determine the validity of the application, considering whether it met the requirements of novelty and compliance with section 40 of the Patents Act 1955. The opposition raised concerns about these two specific aspects of the application. The applicant subsequently proposed amendments to address the deficiencies identified in the initial decision. The court had to consider whether these amendments effectively resolved the issues of novelty and compliance with section 40.

The Supervising Examiner reviewed the proposed amendments to the patent application and the complete specification. The court found that the amendments successfully addressed the issues of novelty and compliance with section 40, which had previously been grounds for opposition. The opponent, Containers Limited, indicated through its patent attorney that it did not wish to be further heard on the matter of the opposition. Consequently, the Supervising Examiner concluded that there were no lawful grounds to object to the patent application in its amended form.

Following the examination and approval of the amendments, the Supervising Examiner directed that the patent application and the complete specification, as amended, proceed to sealing. This decision meant that the patent would be granted to Mauri Brothers & Thomson (Aust.) Pty Limited, provided they met any remaining formalities required by law. The court's final orders were to allow the patent application to proceed, effectively resolving the opposition and paving the way for the patent to be issued.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established