Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd. [1959] HCA 71
The specification failed to disclose an inventive step or a manner of new manufacture as it merely claimed the use of a well-known material for the making of a known article suited to the material’s known properties; therefore, the application did not disclose a patentable invention under the Patents Act 1903-1950.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment in the High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['patents' 'inventive Step' 'manner of New Manufacture' 'patentability of New Uses' 'novelty in Patent Law']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment in the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the use of a known material (reinforced plastic tubes) for a new purpose (projecting self-propelled rockets) constitutes a manner of new manufacture under the Patents Act 1903-1950' 'Whether the application disclosed an inventive step or merely a new use for a known product' 'Whether the Commissioner of Patents was correct in refusing to accept the application for lack of patentable subject matter']
Ratio Decidendi
The specification failed to disclose an inventive step or a manner of new manufacture as it merely claimed the use of a well-known material for the making of a known article suited to the material’s known properties; therefore, the application did not disclose a patentable invention under the Patents Act 1903-1950.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Order of Menzies J. discharged' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal of the applicants to the High Court be dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment