May v Higgins [1916] HCA 8

May v Higgins [1916] HCA 8

The substitution of a tensional wire for the previously existing means of releasing the barrier constitutes, at most, an improvement to an integer of an old combination, but does not create a substantially new or patentable combination. The applicant may seek patent protection only for the specific improvement, not for the combination as a whole.

Parties
Appellant: John May; Respondent: Matthew John Higgins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 1916
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Commissioner of Patents Decision / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Decision appealed from reversed.
Legal Topics
Patentability, Novelty, Combination Patents, Improvement Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Patentability Novelty Combination Patents Improvement Patents

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John May

Appellant

Matthew John Higgins

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Commissioner of Patents Decision / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a patent for a combination where the only alleged novelty is an improvement of one part of an old combination
  2. 2 Whether such an improvement constitutes a patentable invention or only entitles the applicant to patent protection for the improved integer itself

Ratio Decidendi

The substitution of a tensional wire for the previously existing means of releasing the barrier constitutes, at most, an improvement to an integer of an old combination, but does not create a substantially new or patentable combination. The applicant may seek patent protection only for the specific improvement, not for the combination as a whole.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Decision appealed from reversed.

Orders

  • Declare that the grant ought not to be made unless the respondent within four months asks for leave to amend his specification.
  • Time for sealing the patent is extended until one day after the time for appealing from the decision on that application.