Nelson Irrigation Corporation v James Hardie Irrigation Pty Limited Summary

official notice

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Application : No. 577513 in the name of NELSON IRRIGATION CORPORATION

Title : Rotary Sprinkler Head

Action: S 59 0pposition by JAMES HARDIE IRRIGATION PTY LIMITED final decision following amendments

Decision: Issued . Clarity (see previous decision dated 18 September 1991), application amended, amendments allowed and application to proceed to sealing.

patents act 1990

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Re: Patent Application No. 577513 NELSON IRRIGATION CORPORATION and Opposition by JAMES HARDIE IRRIGATION PTY LIMITED under section 59 of the Patents Act 1952

background

In his decision in this matter dated 18 June 1991 the delegate found that the specification did not satisfy section 40. The delegate afforded the applicant an opportunity to amend its specification to overcome this deficiency.

The applicant duly filed a request to amend on 19 August 1991. Following examination action, the request was advertised in the Official Journal on 21 May 1992. In the absence of opposition, this request was allowed on 8 February 1990 and the specification amended at that time in accordance with the request.

In accordance with office practice, the opponent was invited to comment or indicate whether they wished to be heard on the application as amended. They responded within the 14 days allocated that they did not wish to be heard again on the matter. I am therefore in a position to finalize the opposition.

DECISION

I am satisfied that the amendments to the complete specification remove the defect which the delegate found in his earlier decision. Therefore, I direct that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing.

R.A.Melvin
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Patent attorneys for the applicant: Davies and Collison Melbourne

Patent attorneys for the opponent : R.K.Maddern &
Associates Adelaide.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Nelson Irrigation Corporation, the applicant, and James Hardie Irrigation Pty Limited, the opponent. The applicant sought to have its patent application for a rotary sprinkler head sealed, while the opponent had opposed the application. The case was heard in the Patents Act 1990 decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents. The primary issue before the court was whether the amended specification of the applicant's patent application complied with the requirements of section 40 of the Patents Act 1990. This issue arose because the delegate had previously found that the original specification did not meet the requirements of the Act, and the applicant had subsequently amended the specification.

The court found that the amendments made by the applicant addressed the deficiencies identified by the delegate in the previous decision. The court was satisfied that the amended specification met the requirements of section 40 of the Act, and therefore directed that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing. The court noted that the opponent had not wished to be heard again on the matter, and had responded within the allocated time frame to indicate that they did not wish to oppose the application further. The court concluded that it was in a position to finalise the opposition, and directed that the application proceed to sealing.

The final orders of the court were that the application and complete specification as amended be allowed to proceed to sealing. The court's decision was based on its finding that the amended specification met the requirements of the Patents Act 1990, and that the opponent had not opposed the application further. The case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that patent specifications meet the requirements of the Act, and highlights the role of the delegate in assessing whether applications comply with the Act.

Nelson Irrigation Corporation v James Hardie Irrigation Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established