Great Western Corp Pty Ltd v Grovehill Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1456

Great Western Corp Pty Ltd v Grovehill Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1456

The petty patent expired at the end of its 12 month term by force of s 68, and nothing in the statutory scheme made a pending extension application revive it or keep it in force. Any possible expectant or inchoate right arising from the pending extension application was distinct from the monopoly right with which s 64(2) is concerned. Accordingly, petty patent 678130 was not in force when the standard patent was granted and there was no patent to which s 64(2) applied at that date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Patent Proceeding Concerning Infringement Allegations and Validity of a Standard Patent Under the Prohibition on Multiple Patents / Reasons for Judgment and Declaration on Whether Petty Patent 678130 Was in Force When the Standard Patent Was Granted
Outcome
Declaration made for the applicant; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
['validity of Standard Patent' 'petty Patent Term and Extension' 'prohibition on Multiple Patents' 'inchoate Rights Versus Monopoly Rights' 'patent Office Practice']
['patents' 'intellectual Property'] ['validity of Standard Patent' 'petty Patent Term and Extension' 'prohibition on Multiple Patents' 'inchoate Rights Versus Monopoly Rights' 'patent Office Practice']

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

Patent Proceeding Concerning Infringement Allegations and Validity of a Standard Patent Under the Prohibition on Multiple Patents / Reasons for Judgment and Declaration on Whether Petty Patent 678130 Was in Force When the Standard Patent Was Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether petty patent 678130 was in force at the time the standard patent was granted.' 'Whether, at the date of the grant of the standard patent, there was a patent to which s 64(2) of the Patents Act 1990 applied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The petty patent expired at the end of its 12 month term by force of s 68, and nothing in the statutory scheme made a pending extension application revive it or keep it in force. Any possible expectant or inchoate right arising from the pending extension application was distinct from the monopoly right with which s 64(2) is concerned. Accordingly, petty patent 678130 was not in force when the standard patent was granted and there was no patent to which s 64(2) applied at that date.

Court Disposition

Declaration made for the applicant; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The petty patent 678130 was not in force at the time the standard patent was granted; and there was not at the date of that grant, a patent to which s 64(2) applied.' "The respondent should pay the applicant's costs."]