Re Dunlop's Patent

George Henry Dunlop presented two petitions to the High Court. The first sought an extension of the period within which proceedings could be taken for the extension of letters patent No. 3470 of 1905. The second petition prayed for an extension of the term of these letters patent. The Commissioner of Patents was the respondent.

The court was required to determine whether to exercise its discretion to extend the time for presenting a petition for patent extension, particularly when the patent had expired and the application was made significantly out of time. Furthermore, the court had to consider the merits of the patent itself to decide whether an extension of the patent term was warranted.

Starke J. held that the period for taking proceedings should not be extended. While the Patents Act 1921 granted the court discretion to extend this period, even after a patent's expiry, the circumstances here did not justify its exercise. The application was made three years after the patent expired and eight months after the relevant amendment to the Act. The sole reason provided was that the patentee overlooked the requirement to apply for an extension at least six months before expiry. Starke J. found this to be a lack of ordinary care and diligence. Moreover, even if the procedural issue were overcome, the court would not extend the patent term because the invention had not conferred any special or peculiar advantage upon the public, nor was it of a high degree of merit, as evidenced by its minimal use over seventeen years.

Consequently, both petitions were dismissed, and George Henry Dunlop was ordered to pay the costs of the Commissioner of Patents.