Re NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken's Patent [No 2] [1967] HCA 53

Re NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken's Patent [No 2] [1967] HCA 53

The petitioner/appellant failed to demonstrate an exceptional case under s. 94 of the Patents Act 1952 Cth, nor a sufficient probability of future remuneration or utility within the permitted extended term. The lack of profits and utility in Australia was foreseen and part of the risk assumed by the patentee; thus, no extension or re-grant was justified even though the invention was meritorious.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Petition and Appeal Regarding Patent Extension / Judgment and Appeal Determination
Outcome
Petition and appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['patent Extension' 'remuneration' 'discretionary Judgment' 'public Interest' 'inventions' 'colour Television Technology']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['patent Extension' 'remuneration' 'discretionary Judgment' 'public Interest' 'inventions' 'colour Television Technology']

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

Petition and Appeal Regarding Patent Extension / Judgment and Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension by way of re-grant of patent No. 146514 should be granted on the ground of inadequate remuneration' "Whether the case is an 'exceptional case' justifying extension up to ten years" 'If not exceptional, whether extension up to five years should be allowed' 'Whether the patentee has been adequately remunerated during the life of the patent' 'Effect of governmental policy and statutory prohibition on the exploitation of patent in Australia']

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner/appellant failed to demonstrate an exceptional case under s. 94 of the Patents Act 1952 Cth, nor a sufficient probability of future remuneration or utility within the permitted extended term. The lack of profits and utility in Australia was foreseen and part of the risk assumed by the patentee; thus, no extension or re-grant was justified even though the invention was meritorious.

Court Disposition

Petition and appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ["Petitioner to pay the Commissioner's costs, including reserved costs" 'Appellant to pay the costs of the Commissioner of Patents of the appeal']