Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company

The parties to this proceeding were Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (3M) and the Commissioner of Patents. The dispute concerned 3M's application for a patent for a "method of producing a composite material". The Commissioner had refused to grant the patent, and 3M sought to appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether 3M's claimed invention was a "manner of manufacture" within the meaning of section 6 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). This required the court to consider whether the invention fell within the scope of patentable subject matter as understood in Australian patent law, particularly in light of established case law concerning the patentability of methods and products.

Justice Perram found that the invention, a method for producing a composite material, constituted a manner of manufacture. His Honour applied the principles established in cases such as National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, which confirm that a method or process that produces a physical result is generally patentable. The court reasoned that the claimed method involved a series of steps that transformed raw materials into a new and useful composite material, thereby satisfying the requirement of being a practical application of scientific knowledge for a useful purpose. The court distinguished the present case from inventions that are merely abstract ideas or schemes.

The Federal Court allowed 3M's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's decision and remitting the application to the Commissioner with a direction to grant the patent.