HUME PIPE COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED V. MONIER INDUSTRIES LIMITED (RE APPLICATION NO. 102892) 22/1940

HUME PIPE COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED V. MONIER INDUSTRIES LIMITED (RE APPLICATION NO. 102892) 22/1940

The respondent's claimed invention lacks novelty over prior machines already constructed and supplied by the appellant prior to the application; any differences, including the arrangement or multiplicity of springs, are mechanical variations and do not constitute inventive step or a new combination. Therefore, the claimed invention is not patentable.

Parties
Opponent/appellant: Hume Pipe Company (Australia) Limited; Applicant/respondent: Monier Industries Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 1940
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Decision of Deputy Commissioner of Patents set aside. Opposition upheld and application for letters patent refused. Respondent to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Novelty, Anticipation, Patent Opposition
Intellectual Property Patents Novelty Anticipation Patent Opposition

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hume Pipe Company (Australia) Limited

Opponent/appellant

Monier Industries Limited

Applicant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the invention claimed in application No. 102,892 was novel over prior machines constructed and supplied by the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the claims in the specification properly embody features allegedly novel
  3. 3 Whether mechanical variations amount to inventive step or new combination

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's claimed invention lacks novelty over prior machines already constructed and supplied by the appellant prior to the application; any differences, including the arrangement or multiplicity of springs, are mechanical variations and do not constitute inventive step or a new combination. Therefore, the claimed invention is not patentable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Decision of Deputy Commissioner of Patents set aside. Opposition upheld and application for letters patent refused. Respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • Decision of Deputy Commissioner of Patents set aside
  • Opposition upheld with costs to the opponent