Re Patent of Trufood of Australia Limited [1920] HCA 87

Re Patent of Trufood of Australia Limited [1920] HCA 87

On the evidence, the applicant had been adequately remunerated for the invention by substantial profits over ten years (12–15% per annum on capital invested excluding patent acquisition cost), and no sufficient reason (including alleged war conditions or need to account for goodwill as loss) had been shown for extension of the patent term under section 84 of the Patents Act 1903-1909.

Parties
Petitioner/applicant: Trufood of Australia Ltd.; Respondent (served, Not Appearing): Attorney-General for the Commonwealth and Commissioner of Patents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 1920
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Original Jurisdiction (petition for Extension of Patent) / Decision on Appeal From High Court in Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Patent Extension, Adequate Remuneration Under Patents Act, Profits and Goodwill in Patent Law
Intellectual Property Law Patent Extension Adequate Remuneration Under Patents Act Profits and Goodwill in Patent Law

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trufood of Australia Ltd.

Petitioner/applicant

Attorney-General for the Commonwealth and Commissioner of Patents

Respondent (served, Not Appearing)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Original Jurisdiction (petition for Extension of Patent) / Decision on Appeal From High Court in Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner had been inadequately remunerated for the patent under section 84 of the Patents Act 1903-1909
  2. 2 Whether goodwill should be taken into account in assessing profits/remuneration for extension of patent

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the applicant had been adequately remunerated for the invention by substantial profits over ten years (12–15% per annum on capital invested excluding patent acquisition cost), and no sufficient reason (including alleged war conditions or need to account for goodwill as loss) had been shown for extension of the patent term under section 84 of the Patents Act 1903-1909.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Petition for extension of patent dismissed.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.