Opposition by Outsystems Pty Ltd to extension of protection under regulation 17A.33 of the
Case
•
[2025] ATMO 119
•18 June 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Opposition by Outsystems Pty Ltd to extension of protection under regulation 17A.33 of the [2025] ATMO 119
[2025] ATMO 119
18 June 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an opposition by Outsystems Pty Ltd to an application for an extension of protection by a foreign applicant under regulation 17A.33 of the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth). The opposition was heard by Timothy Brown, acting as a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents.
The central legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of regulation 17A.33(2)(b) of the Patents Regulations 1991, specifically concerning the provision of a translation of the patent specification into English. The delegate was required to determine if the translation provided by the applicant was sufficiently accurate and complete to meet the regulatory standard.
The delegate considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the quality of the translation. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the delegate found that the regulation required a translation that accurately conveyed the substance of the original specification. The delegate concluded that the translation provided by the applicant did not meet this standard, as it contained significant inaccuracies and omissions that could mislead or confuse a reader.
Consequently, the delegate upheld the opposition and refused the application for an extension of protection.
The central legal issue before the delegate was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of regulation 17A.33(2)(b) of the Patents Regulations 1991, specifically concerning the provision of a translation of the patent specification into English. The delegate was required to determine if the translation provided by the applicant was sufficiently accurate and complete to meet the regulatory standard.
The delegate considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the quality of the translation. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the delegate found that the regulation required a translation that accurately conveyed the substance of the original specification. The delegate concluded that the translation provided by the applicant did not meet this standard, as it contained significant inaccuracies and omissions that could mislead or confuse a reader.
Consequently, the delegate upheld the opposition and refused the application for an extension of protection.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
0
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP
[2010] FCAFC 58
Pfizer Products Inc v Karam
[2006] FCA 1663