DRAIN V. BUTCHER & ANOR. 45/1936

DRAIN V. BUTCHER & ANOR. 45/1936

The petitioner is not the actual inventor of the apparatus designed and constructed by Butcher and Jupe, nor have they obtained Letters Patent for that apparatus in fraud of his rights. The competing apparatus differ in form and function, and the claims in the respondents' specification are not open to the objections taken by the petitioner.

Parties
Petitioner: Percy James Drain; Patentee/respondent: Edwin George Butcher; Patentee/respondent: William Edmund Jupe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 1937
Procedural Posture
Petition to Revoke Patent / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Patents, Revocation of Letters Patent, Fraudulent Procurement, Inventorship
Intellectual Property Patents Revocation of Letters Patent Fraudulent Procurement Inventorship

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Percy James Drain

Petitioner

Edwin George Butcher

Patentee/respondent

William Edmund Jupe

Patentee/respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to Revoke Patent / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is the actual inventor of the apparatus described in Letters Patent No. 15454 of 1933
  2. 2 Whether the Letters Patent were obtained in fraud of the petitioner's rights

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner is not the actual inventor of the apparatus designed and constructed by Butcher and Jupe, nor have they obtained Letters Patent for that apparatus in fraud of his rights. The competing apparatus differ in form and function, and the claims in the respondents' specification are not open to the objections taken by the petitioner.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the shorthand writer.