Official notice
decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents
Petty patent : No. 622391 in the name of ROBYN ANN
ROELOFS
Title : Column Hoists
Action: Application under s.69 for an extension of term of the petty patent.
Decision: Issued . Amendments not filed within 60 days; Extension of the term of the petty patent refused.
patents act 1990
decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents
Re:Petty Patent No. 622391 in the name of ROBYN ANN ROELOFS, and application under section 69 of the Patents Act 1990 for an extension of term of the petty patent.
DECISION
In my decision dated 18 October 1992 I found that in light of information provided by ENDUREQUIP PTY LTD under section 28 that the petty patent was invalid for lack of novelty. I nevertheless was of the opinion that there might be patentable subject matter disclosed in the specification and I allowed the patentee 60 days to propose amendments to my satisfaction.
The patentee has not proposed any such amendments and the time allowed has now elapsed. Therefore I refuse to grant an extension of the term of the petty patent.
PHILIP SPANN
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
Patent attorneys for the patentee : Grant Adams & Company, Brisbane
Patent attorneys for the informant : Fisher & Kelly, Brisbane
- AGLC
- Robyn Ann Roelofs v Endurequip Pty Ltd [1994] APO 7
- Case
- [1994] APO 7
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the patent was valid and, if not, whether it contained patentable subject matter that could be amended to rectify any deficiencies. The delegate had previously ruled that the patent was invalid due to a lack of novelty, but recognised that there might be patentable subject matter in the specification. Consequently, the patentee was given a period of 60 days to propose amendments to the specification to address the issues of novelty. The central question was whether the patentee had met the requirements to amend the patent and thus secure an extension of its term.
In rendering his decision, the delegate noted that the patentee had not proposed any amendments to the specification within the allotted 60-day period. As a result, the delegate concluded that the patent remained invalid and, therefore, refused to grant an extension of the term of the patent. The delegate's decision was based on the failure of the patentee to take the necessary steps to amend the patent as directed. The delegate found that without the proposed amendments, the patent could not be considered valid, and thus an extension of its term was not warranted.
The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of the term of the petty patent was refused. The delegate's decision was that the patent remained invalid due to the lack of novelty and the failure of the patentee to propose acceptable amendments within the specified timeframe.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.