Schwer v Fulham and Robinson

This case involved an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning an alleged infringement of a patent for an improvement in the construction of sheet metal baths. The patentee, the plaintiff, claimed that the defendants had infringed the second claim of his patent, which related to the method of supporting a strengthening board beneath the bath using cast iron bearers and a centre stay. The defendants disputed the validity of this claim, arguing it lacked invention and novelty, and also denied infringement.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's patent claim constituted a valid invention, and if so, whether the defendants' construction infringed upon it. Specifically, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's method of using cast iron bearers and a centre stay to support a strengthening board was a novel and inventive step, or merely an application of existing knowledge and common mechanical principles.

The High Court, affirming the decision of Street J., found the patent invalid for want of invention. Griffith C.J. explained that while it was known that sheet metal baths required support and that baths should ideally be raised for sanitary reasons, the plaintiff's claimed invention essentially involved placing a shelf on end supports and adding a central prop. The court held that there was nothing new in supporting a shelf at its ends, fixing those ends, or adding a central support, even if adjustable. These elements, individually and in combination, were considered to be within the realm of common knowledge and ordinary mechanical skill. Furthermore, the court found no infringement, noting that the defendants used a tension rod to achieve rigidity in the strengthening board, which was not a mere mechanical equivalent of the plaintiff's central prop as claimed in the patent.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.