D.G. Searle & Co v Drug Houses of Australia Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 122

D.G. Searle & Co v Drug Houses of Australia Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 122

The Supreme Court of Victoria had valid power to make Order 5 rule 1 regulating the time for filing caveats under the Patents Act; the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders made under such rules; the order granting extension of time to file caveat was properly made in exercise of discretion, and no error or substantial injustice was shown.

Parties
Appellant (respondent): G. D. Searle & Co.; Respondent (applicant): Drug Houses of Australia Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 1984
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Order of Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motion challenging competency of appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Extension of Term, Caveat Procedure, Practice and Procedure, Rule Making Power
Intellectual Property Federal Jurisdiction Patents Extension of Term Caveat Procedure Practice and Procedure Rule Making Power

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. D. Searle & Co.

Appellant (respondent)

Drug Houses of Australia Pty. Ltd.

Respondent (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Order of Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had power to make rules regarding time for filing caveat under Patents Act
  2. 2 Competency of appeal to Federal Court from interlocutory order under Patents Act
  3. 3 Validity of Order 5 rule 1 Supreme Court (Industrial Property) Rules 1981 (Vic.)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Victoria had valid power to make Order 5 rule 1 regulating the time for filing caveats under the Patents Act; the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders made under such rules; the order granting extension of time to file caveat was properly made in exercise of discretion, and no error or substantial injustice was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motion challenging competency of appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The motion of Drug Houses of Australia Pty. Ltd. dated 8 March 1984 be refused.
  • The appeal against the order of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 6 December 1983 be dismissed.