Willmann v Petersen [1904] HCA 32

Willmann v Petersen [1904] HCA 32

The appellant's second invention, being an adaptation of known mechanical contrivances to a use which resulted in greater efficiency and economy and requiring some substantial exercise of inventive faculty, was a proper subject-matter for a patent. The novelty in the mode of the combination, resulting in increased efficiency and economy, was sufficient to protect the patent against infringement. The appeal was allowed and the original judgment in favour of the plaintiff was restored with the exception of costs relating to the first patent.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Willmann; Respondent; Defendant: Petersen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 1904
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Appeal / High Court of Australia Appellate Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of Full Court reversed. Judgment of Power J. restored in respect of Patent No. 5289, but not as to Patent No. 4799.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Subject Matter of Patents, Combination Patents, Anticipation, Damages, Injunctions, Costs
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Subject Matter of Patents Combination Patents Anticipation Damages +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willmann

Appellant; Plaintiff

Petersen

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Appeal / High Court of Australia Appellate Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged inventions were valid subject-matter for a patent
  2. 2 Whether there was an infringement of the patents
  3. 3 Whether the patents were anticipated by prior use

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's second invention, being an adaptation of known mechanical contrivances to a use which resulted in greater efficiency and economy and requiring some substantial exercise of inventive faculty, was a proper subject-matter for a patent. The novelty in the mode of the combination, resulting in increased efficiency and economy, was sufficient to protect the patent against infringement. The appeal was allowed and the original judgment in favour of the plaintiff was restored with the exception of costs relating to the first patent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of Full Court reversed. Judgment of Power J. restored in respect of Patent No. 5289, but not as to Patent No. 4799.

Orders

  • Damages of £4 awarded to the plaintiff
  • Injunction granted to restrain further infringement of Patent No. 5289