Vulcan Australia Limited v Braemar Appliances Pty Ltd

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952 - and - In the Matter of the Extension of Term of Petty Patent Nos. 539479 and 539480 both in the Name of VULCAN AUSTRALIA LIMITED - and - In the Matter of Notice under Section 68B(3) by BRAEMAR APPLIANCES PTY. LTD.

DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:

Petty patent specifications 539479 and 539480 were both lodged on 12 July, 1984 and a petty patent was sealed on each on 6 September, 1984.

On 2 August, 1985, the patentee made applications in accordance with sub-section 68B(l) of the Act for an extension of the term of each petty patent. Notices in accordance with sub-section 68B(3) were filed in relation to each petty patent on 5 August, 1985 by BRAEMAR APPLIANCES PTY. LTD. Both the patentee and the informant were represented at a hearing in respect of the above matters on 3 September, 1985.

I am not satisfied of the existence in relation to the petty patents of any of the grounds set out in paragraphs 100(l)(b) to (g) of the Act, and accordingly I grant an extension of the term of petty patent 539479 and of petty patent 539480.

I will issue reasons for my decision in the near future.

(T.R. BRUHN)

Supervising Examiner of Patents

9 SEP 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vulcan Australia Limited sought an extension of the term of their petty patents 539479 and 539480, which they had initially sealed on 6 September, 1984. The application for this extension was challenged by Braemar Appliances Pty Ltd, which filed a notice under section 68B(3) of the Patents Act 1952 on 5 August, 1985. The dispute came before a Supervising Examiner of Patents who was tasked with determining whether the grounds for an extension existed under the provisions of the Act.

The court had to decide if any of the specified grounds in paragraphs 100(1)(b) to (g) of the Patents Act 1952 were applicable to the patents in question. The Supervising Examiner reviewed the evidence and representations made by both parties during the hearing held on 3 September, 1985. After thorough consideration, the Examiner found that none of the grounds for an extension were met in relation to the patents. Consequently, the decision was made to grant the extension of the term of both petty patents 539479 and 539480.

The Supervising Examiner concluded that there was insufficient evidence to deny the extension of the patent terms. The decision was rendered on 9 September, 1985, with the Examiner stating that detailed reasons for the decision would be issued shortly. As such, the application for the extension of the term of the petty patents was successful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established