N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken & Anor v Mirabella International Pty Limited

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for special leave to appeal. The appellants, N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken and Philips Lighting Pty, sought to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the phrase "manner of manufacture" as it appears in section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the precise meaning and scope of the term "manner of manufacture" under the relevant section of the Patents Act. Specifically, the appellants contended that the omission of the word "new" from the phrase "manner of new manufacture" (as it appeared in earlier legislation) altered the legal test for patentability, suggesting a broader interpretation than previously applied. The appellants argued that the Federal Court had erred in its construction of this statutory language.

The appellants' argument, as presented to the High Court, was that the Parliament deliberately removed the word "new" from the definition of patentable invention to broaden the scope of what constitutes a "manner of manufacture." They distinguished this from the concept of "newness," which they argued traditionally related to the inventive step or the novelty of the invention itself, rather than its fundamental character as a manufacture. The appellants sought to establish that the Federal Court's majority judgment, and indeed the minority judgment, had not adequately separated the question of whether something was a "manner of manufacture" from the question of its novelty or inventive step, thereby misinterpreting the legislative intent.