Johnson v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [2000] FCA 1555

Johnson v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [2000] FCA 1555

On the evidence before the Court, persons skilled in the explosives industry in Australia as at December 1986 had no knowledge that sawdust could be used with ANFO for the claimed purpose and would not have considered the combination worth trying. The claimed composition achieved the desired result by utilising hitherto unknown and unexpected properties of the ingredients, so it was not merely an obvious new use of an old substance but involved an inventive step and was an invention for the purposes of the Statute of Monopolies.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Patents Act 1990 (cth) S 60(4) From a Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents Refusing an Application for a Standard Patent / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; declaration that a patent should be granted to the appellants pursuant to application 651839.
Legal Topics
['inventive Step' 'manner of Manufacture' 'new Use of Known Materials' 'patent Application for ANFO and Sawdust Explosive Composition' 'appeal From Commissioner of Patents Delegate']
['patents' 'intellectual Property'] ['inventive Step' 'manner of Manufacture' 'new Use of Known Materials' 'patent Application for ANFO and Sawdust Explosive Composition' 'appeal From Commissioner of Patents Delegate']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Patents Act 1990 (cth) S 60(4) From a Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents Refusing an Application for a Standard Patent / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the patent application disclosed an invention within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.' 'Whether the claimed invention was obvious or lacked an inventive step.' 'Whether mixing sawdust with ANFO to reduce explosive effect involved use of hitherto unknown and unexpected properties of known materials.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the Court, persons skilled in the explosives industry in Australia as at December 1986 had no knowledge that sawdust could be used with ANFO for the claimed purpose and would not have considered the combination worth trying. The claimed composition achieved the desired result by utilising hitherto unknown and unexpected properties of the ingredients, so it was not merely an obvious new use of an old substance but involved an inventive step and was an invention for the purposes of the Statute of Monopolies.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; declaration that a patent should be granted to the appellants pursuant to application 651839.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'A patent should be granted to the appellants pursuant to application 651839.']