Ronald Mervyn Turner v ALFARM Industries Pty Ltd

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Patent Application No. 536360 in the Name of RONALD MERVYN TURNER
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Opposition thereto under Section 59 by ALFARM INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD.

DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS
The acceptance of this application was advertised on 3 May 1984 and Alfarm Industries Pty. Ltd. lodged a Notice of Opposition on 1 August 1984. Service of evidence‑in‑support was completed on 1 November 1985. On 29 August 1986, the applicant lodged a request to withdraw the application and the withdrawal thereof was subsequently advertised in the Official Journal on 23 October 1986.
In a letter lodged 5 December 1986, the opponent requested that in view of the withdrawal of the application, the Commissioner should award costs against the applicant. The applicant was advised of the opponent's request in a letter dated 14 January 1987 and was allowed 21 days within which to inform the Commissioner if he wished to be heard on this matter. However, the applicant chose not to respond within the 21 days.
I have inspected the evidence‑in‑support and found it to be, prima facie, substantial and relevant.

‑ 2 ‑

. Therefore, in my opinion, the opponent has properly and seriously mounted the oppostion and is entitled to costs up to the date of withdrawal of the application. I so decide.

(J. Roveta)
Supervising Examiner of Patents

Attorneys for Applicant: Phillips, Ormonde and Fitzpatrick, Melbourne

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Mervyn Turner, the applicant, filed a patent application which was opposed by ALFARM Industries Pty Ltd. The dispute was heard by the Supervising Examiner of Patents under the Patents Act 1990. The primary issue before the court was whether the opponent, ALFARM Industries Pty Ltd, was entitled to costs after the applicant, Ronald Mervyn Turner, withdrew the patent application. ALFARM Industries had lodged a Notice of Opposition on 1 August 1984 and provided evidence-in-support by 1 November 1985. Turner subsequently withdrew the application on 23 October 1986. In light of this withdrawal, ALFARM Industries requested that the Commissioner award costs against Turner.

The Supervising Examiner, J. Roveta, examined the evidence-in-support and found it to be substantial and relevant. The court concluded that ALFARM Industries had properly and seriously mounted the opposition and, therefore, was entitled to costs up to the date of withdrawal of the application. Turner was given an opportunity to be heard on the matter but chose not to respond within the stipulated timeframe. As a result, the court decided in favour of awarding costs to ALFARM Industries.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established