SCRIBAL PROPRIETARY LIMITED AND STENMARK PROPRIETARY LIMITED V. HENRY GEORGE MARTIN 21/1962

SCRIBAL PROPRIETARY LIMITED AND STENMARK PROPRIETARY LIMITED V. HENRY GEORGE MARTIN 21/1962

The appeals are dismissed by consent due to the appellants' clear intention not to proceed, but no order is made for the grant of the patent as there is insufficient material before the court.

Parties
Appellant: Scribal Proprietary Limited; Appellant: Stenmark Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Henry George Martin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1963
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal Dismissal by Consent
Outcome
Appeals dismissed by consent.
Legal Topics
Patents, Appeal Procedure, Discontinuance of Appeal
Intellectual Property Patents Appeal Procedure Discontinuance of Appeal

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scribal Proprietary Limited

Appellant

Stenmark Proprietary Limited

Appellant

Henry George Martin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal Dismissal by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeals against the Commissioner's decision to grant a patent should be dismissed by consent after notice of discontinuance was filed.
  2. 2 Whether a formal order should be made that a patent issue under Section 66 of the old Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed by consent due to the appellants' clear intention not to proceed, but no order is made for the grant of the patent as there is insufficient material before the court.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed by consent.

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed by consent.