VON PLATEN AND OTHERS V. HALLSTROMS PROPRIETARY LIMITED AND OTHERS 18/1940

VON PLATEN AND OTHERS V. HALLSTROMS PROPRIETARY LIMITED AND OTHERS 18/1940

The extension of the Letters Patent is refused because the patentees and their assignees have been more than adequately remunerated—especially by the substantial sum received for the sale/disposal of American rights—and in light of the circumstances including delay in petition, expiration of foreign patents, and the established strength of the organisation in Australia. The public interest does not warrant a further monopoly.

Parties
Petitioners: Von Platen and others; Caveator/objector: Hallstroms Proprietary Limited; Caveator/objector: Electricity Meter Manufacturing Company Pty. Ltd.; Caveator/objector: Dominion Products Ltd.; Intervenor: Commissioner of Patents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 1940
Procedural Posture
Petition for Extension of Patents / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Petition dismissed; costs awarded against petitioners
Legal Topics
Patent Extension, Remuneration of Patentees, Validity of Patents, Convention Patents, Patent Specification Requirements, Foreign Patent Rights, Discretionary Extension of Patent Term
Intellectual Property Law Patent Extension Remuneration of Patentees Validity of Patents Convention Patents Patent Specification Requirements Foreign Patent Rights Discretionary Extension of Patent Term

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Von Platen and others

Petitioners

Hallstroms Proprietary Limited

Caveator/objector

Electricity Meter Manufacturing Company Pty. Ltd.

Caveator/objector

Dominion Products Ltd.

Caveator/objector

Commissioner of Patents

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Petition for Extension of Patents / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Letters Patent 13860/23 and 13861/23 for improvements in absorption refrigerating apparatus should be extended after expiration
  2. 2 Whether the patentees or their assignees have been adequately remunerated under the Australian patent
  3. 3 Whether the specifications sufficiently describe the invention

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of the Letters Patent is refused because the patentees and their assignees have been more than adequately remunerated—especially by the substantial sum received for the sale/disposal of American rights—and in light of the circumstances including delay in petition, expiration of foreign patents, and the established strength of the organisation in Australia. The public interest does not warrant a further monopoly.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed; costs awarded against petitioners

Orders

  • Petition for extension of Letters Patent 13860/23 and 13861/23 filed on 29 December 1938 dismissed.
  • Petitioners to pay the costs of the Commissioner of Patents.