Goldman v Bramley [1936] HCA 35

Goldman v Bramley [1936] HCA 35

The commissioner’s communication to the applicant, providing the adverse examiner’s report and inviting amendment or argument, amounted to a valid direction for amendment under sec. 42. The amendments allowed by the commissioner were valid. There was no disconformity between the amended provisional specification and the complete specification. Accordingly, the appeal fails.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Goldman; Respondent: Edward Bramley; Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Patents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Provisional Specification Amendment, Commissioner's Discretion
Intellectual Property Patents Provisional Specification Amendment Commissioner's Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Goldman

Appellant

Edward Bramley

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner of Patents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to a provisional specification were valid under Patents Act 1903-1930, sec. 42.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner of Patents’ directions complied with statutory requirements.
  3. 3 Whether there was disconformity between the provisional specification and the complete specification.

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioner’s communication to the applicant, providing the adverse examiner’s report and inviting amendment or argument, amounted to a valid direction for amendment under sec. 42. The amendments allowed by the commissioner were valid. There was no disconformity between the amended provisional specification and the complete specification. Accordingly, the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Appellant also to pay the costs of the Commissioner of Patents.