SHEPHERD V. ALANDEE PTY. LTD. AND OTHERS 3/1961
The motion to amend the specification is refused because of the applicant's delayed conduct and omission to disclose material prior specifications to the Commissioner, which are adverse factors in the exercise of discretion under s.86(1).
- Parties
- Applicant: George Frederick Shepherd; Respondent: Alandee Pty. Limited; Respondent: Surecast Products Pty. Limited; Objector: Commissioner of Patents
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 1964
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under S.86 of the Patents Act 1952 1962 / Judgment on Motion to Amend Specification
- Outcome
- motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Patent Specification, Exercise of Court Discretion, Patent Revocation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Frederick Shepherd
Applicant
Alandee Pty. Limited
Respondent
Surecast Products Pty. Limited
Respondent
Commissioner of Patents
Objector
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.86 of the Patents Act 1952 1962 / Judgment on Motion to Amend Specification
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether applicant's conduct warrants court's discretion to allow amendment under s.86 Patents Act 1952-1962
- 2 Whether s.78 of the Patents Act prevents allowance of the motion
Ratio Decidendi
The motion to amend the specification is refused because of the applicant's delayed conduct and omission to disclose material prior specifications to the Commissioner, which are adverse factors in the exercise of discretion under s.86(1).
Court Disposition
motion dismissed
Orders
- motion dismissed with costs including reserved costs
- applicant to pay the costs of the Commissioner of Patents
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