Maeder v Busch [1938] HCA 8

Maeder v Busch [1938] HCA 8

The claims of the patent in suit are invalid as they are anticipated by prior public commercial use and common knowledge within the hairdressing trade, and therefore lack novelty. The appeal is dismissed on this ground without deciding whether such a process, being an operation performed on a part of the human body, can be patentable subject matter.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Frederic Maeder; Respondent; Defendant: Walter Busch; Respondent; Defendant: Henry Anton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Novelty, Prior Use, Manner of New Manufacture
Intellectual Property Law Patents Novelty Prior Use Manner of New Manufacture

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederic Maeder

Appellant; Plaintiff

Walter Busch

Respondent; Defendant

Henry Anton

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimed process for permanent waving of hair is invalid due to prior public user and lack of novelty
  2. 2 Whether a method of conducting an operation on the human body, specifically hair, is patentable under the Patents Act

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of the patent in suit are invalid as they are anticipated by prior public commercial use and common knowledge within the hairdressing trade, and therefore lack novelty. The appeal is dismissed on this ground without deciding whether such a process, being an operation performed on a part of the human body, can be patentable subject matter.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.