Steinhaus GmbH v Screenex Wire Weaving Manufacturers (Proprietary) Limited Summary

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Application No. 525477 for a Patent by STEINHAUS GMBH
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Opposition thereto under Section 59 by SCREENEX WIRE WEAVING MANUFACTURERS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED.

FINAL DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:
        In a decision in this matter dated 11 April, 1985 I found that claims 15 to 18 of the complete specification failed to comply with section 40 and lacked novelty. I allowed the applicant sixty days in which to request amendment of the complete specification.
        On 29 May, 1985 the applicant lodged a section 77 request to amend the complete specification. Subsequent to proceedings under section 79 the request to amend was advertised on 4 July, 1985. The request was allowed on 14 October, 1985 and the amendments were incorporated into the complete specification.
        I am satisfied that the amendments remove the basis for my earlier findings against the specification as mentioned above.
        I am of the opinion that there is no lawful ground of objection to the application or complete specification and, accordingly, I direct that the application and amended specification may proceed to sealing, subject to any appeal.

(T.R. BRUHN)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steinhaus GmbH, a German company, sought a patent for a particular manufacturing process. Screenex Wire Weaving Manufacturers, an Australian company, opposed the patent application, claiming it lacked novelty and did not comply with the requirements of the Patents Act 1952. The dispute was heard by a Supervising Examiner of Patents in Australia.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether the patent application complied with the requirements of the Patents Act 1952 and whether the claimed invention was novel. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the claims 15 to 18 of the complete specification met the statutory requirements for patentability and whether there was a lawful basis for opposing the patent application.

The Supervising Examiner of Patents found that the earlier claims 15 to 18 did not comply with section 40 of the Patents Act 1952 and lacked novelty. However, after Steinhaus GmbH requested and was granted permission to amend the complete specification, the Examiner concluded that the amendments removed the grounds for the earlier objections. Consequently, the Examiner found no lawful basis for opposing the patent application and directed that the application and amended specification could proceed to sealing. This decision was made subject to any potential appeal by the opposing party.

The final orders of the court were that the patent application by Steinhaus GmbH, as amended, could proceed to sealing. The decision was made on the basis that the amendments to the complete specification addressed the previous objections, and no lawful grounds for opposing the patent application remained.

Steinhaus GmbH v Screenex Wire Weaving Manufacturers (Proprietary) Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established