Danby Pty Ltd v Patents, the Commissioner of, & Anor [1988] FCA 160

Danby Pty Ltd v Patents, the Commissioner of, & Anor [1988] FCA 160

Section 160(2) of the Patents Act 1952 provides a jurisdiction for the Commissioner to extend time to lodge a notice of opposition after the expiration of the ordinary period fixed by s.59(1), upon establishment of error or omission as required. The Examiner was entitled to hold that there was an error or omission sufficient to warrant the exercise of discretion to grant extension, notwithstanding that the specific nature of the error was not precisely identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['patents' 'extension of Time' 'judicial Review']

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

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner of Patents has power to grant an extension of time for lodging a notice of opposition under both s.59(1) and s.160(2) of the Patents Act 1952' 'Whether the error or omission found established the necessary causation to justify the extension of time under s.160(2)']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 160(2) of the Patents Act 1952 provides a jurisdiction for the Commissioner to extend time to lodge a notice of opposition after the expiration of the ordinary period fixed by s.59(1), upon establishment of error or omission as required. The Examiner was entitled to hold that there was an error or omission sufficient to warrant the exercise of discretion to grant extension, notwithstanding that the specific nature of the error was not precisely identified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the second respondent its costs of the proceedings to be taxed.']