FIELDING COY. LTD. V. RAINSFORD 4/1931

None of the challenged claims disclosed a patentable invention; all were anticipated or obvious steps within knowledge of a competent workman skilled in the art. Therefore, the specified claims are invalid for want of invention.

Parties: Petitioner: J. Fielding and Co Ltd; Respondent/patentee: Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 31 July 1931
Procedural Posture: Petition for Revocation of Patents / Judgment
Outcome: Revocation (in part) of Letters Patent granted to Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford; award of costs to petitioner.
Legal Topics: Patents, Revocation of Patents, Invention Novelty Requirements

Intellectual Property Patents Revocation of Patents Invention Novelty Requirements

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2

Parties

J. Fielding and Co Ltd

Petitioner

Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford

Respondent/patentee

Procedural Posture

Petition for Revocation of Patents / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the specified claims of Letters Patent No. 23801 of 1925 and No. 5116 of 1926 granted to Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford disclose patentable inventions or are invalid for want of novelty or inventive step.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Revocation (in part) of Letters Patent granted to Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford; award of costs to petitioner.

Orders

Letters Patent No. 23801 of 1925 granted to Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford revoked as to Claims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, and 23.
Letters Patent No. 5116 of 1926 granted to Clarence Ferdinand Rainsford revoked as to Claims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8.