NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken's Patent, Re [No 1] [1966] HCA 43

NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken's Patent, Re [No 1] [1966] HCA 43

The application failed because the applicant did not prove that it suffered loss or damage as patentee by reason of hostilities within s. 95. The invention was not made until 1947 and the Australian patent was granted after the war; the alleged loss from wartime interruption to research and from direct viewing television did not qualify as loss suffered as patentee. The applicant also failed to prove that the absence or future delay of colour television in Australia was caused by the war, and any possible loss from flying spot scanning tubes was not shown to justify an extension.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of the Term of Letters Patent No. 146514 Under S. 95 of the Patents Act 1952 1962 Cth / Final Determination of Application for Re Grant After Expiry of the Patent Term
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Patent Term' 'war Loss' 'loss of Opportunity to Deal in or Develop Invention' 'causation' 'television Technology' 'patent Re Grant']
['patents' 'intellectual Property'] ['extension of Patent Term' 'war Loss' 'loss of Opportunity to Deal in or Develop Invention' 'causation' 'television Technology' 'patent Re Grant']

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 Extension of the Term of Letters Patent No. 146514 Under S. 95 of the Patents Act 1952 1962 Cth / Final Determination of Application for Re Grant After Expiry of the Patent Term

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant, as patentee, suffered loss or damage by reason of hostilities between Her Majesty and a foreign state within s. 95 of the Patents Act 1952-1962 Cth.' "Whether wartime interruption of research into projection television tubes and wartime advances in direct viewing tube techniques constituted compensable war loss for the applicant's patent." 'Whether the absence or delayed introduction of colour television in Australia was proved to be caused by the war so as to justify extending the patent.' 'Whether any loss relating to flying spot scanning tubes justified an extension of the patent term.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the applicant did not prove that it suffered loss or damage as patentee by reason of hostilities within s. 95. The invention was not made until 1947 and the Australian patent was granted after the war; the alleged loss from wartime interruption to research and from direct viewing television did not qualify as loss suffered as patentee. The applicant also failed to prove that the absence or future delay of colour television in Australia was caused by the war, and any possible loss from flying spot scanning tubes was not shown to justify an extension.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the Commissioner's costs."]