Re Patent of Trufood of Australia Limited

The case of *Re Patent of Trufood of Australia Limited* involved an appeal to the Full Court of the High Court of Australia from a decision of Starke J. The applicant, Trufood of Australia Limited, sought an extension of the term of its patent for a process and apparatus for recovering solids from liquids, primarily used for converting milk into a dry powder. The core of the dispute was whether the applicant had been adequately remunerated by its patent during its initial term, as required by section 84 of the *Patents Act 1903-1909*, to justify an extension.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had demonstrated inadequate remuneration from the patent and, consequently, whether an extension of the patent term should be granted. A related question, raised by Starke J. and discussed by the Full Court, was whether the value of the goodwill of a business operating a patent should be considered when assessing the patentee's profits for the purpose of determining adequate remuneration.

The Full Court, affirming the decision of Starke J., found that the applicant had not been inadequately remunerated. The court noted that the company had invested approximately £20,000 in capital, excluding the cost of the patent itself. Over a ten-year period, the company had generated net profits ranging between £25,000 and £30,000, representing an average annual return of 12.5% to 15% on its invested capital. The court considered these figures to be indicative of adequate remuneration, rendering an extension of the patent term unnecessary. While the issue of goodwill was discussed, the court ultimately determined that the financial figures alone were sufficient to dismiss the appeal, without needing to definitively rule on whether goodwill should be included in profit calculations for patent extension purposes. The appeal was dismissed with costs.