Re General Tire and Rubber Co's Patent [1968] HCA 26

Re General Tire and Rubber Co's Patent [1968] HCA 26

The application was refused because, although the invention had considerable merit and utility and the petitioner's remuneration from the Australian patent was small, the petitioner had deliberately adopted and maintained a policy of exploiting the invention through worldwide licensing and United States patent litigation, had largely disregarded its Australian patent rights during the statutory term, and had not been diligent in exploiting the Australian market. In all the circumstances, including the potential prejudice to the established Australian synthetic rubber industry if the patent were extended, the petitioner should be left to pursue its existing policy and any proceedings for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Patent Extension Petition / Application to Extend the Term of Australian Letters Patent 152,872 After Expiry
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs including the costs of the Commissioner of Patents.
Legal Topics
['extension of Term of Patent' 'inadequate Remuneration' 'profits From Patent' 'merits and Utility of Invention' "patentee's Exploitation of Australian Patent" 'validity of Patent Claims']
['patent Law'] ['extension of Term of Patent' 'inadequate Remuneration' 'profits From Patent' 'merits and Utility of Invention' "patentee's Exploitation of Australian Patent" 'validity of Patent Claims']

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 Extension Petition / Application to Extend the Term of Australian Letters Patent 152,872 After Expiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the term of Australian letters patent 152,872 should be extended under the Patents Act 1952-1962 Cth.' 'Whether the petitioner had been inadequately remunerated by its Australian patent.' 'What weight should be given to the nature and merits of the invention, the profits made by the patentee, and all the circumstances of the case.' "Whether the petitioner's deliberate policy of exploiting the patent through licensing tyre manufacturers and its inaction in Australia justified refusal of an extension." 'Whether claims 18 and 19 affected any possible extension of the patent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because, although the invention had considerable merit and utility and the petitioner's remuneration from the Australian patent was small, the petitioner had deliberately adopted and maintained a policy of exploiting the invention through worldwide licensing and United States patent litigation, had largely disregarded its Australian patent rights during the statutory term, and had not been diligent in exploiting the Australian market. In all the circumstances, including the potential prejudice to the established Australian synthetic rubber industry if the patent were extended, the petitioner should be left to pursue its existing policy and any proceedings for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs including the costs of the Commissioner of Patents.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs including the costs of the Commissioner of Patents.']