Sly v United Development Corporation Pty Ltd [1962] HCA 16

Sly v United Development Corporation Pty Ltd [1962] HCA 16

The amendment sought is by way of disclaimer or correction, does not claim an invention substantially larger or different, is plainly expressed, and does not introduce ambiguity; therefore, leave to amend should be allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['patents' 'amendment of Patent Specification']
['intellectual Property'] ['patents' 'amendment of Patent Specification']

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amendment to claim 3 of the patent specification should be allowed under s. 71 and s. 78 of the Patents Act 1903-1950 Cth' 'Whether the amendment would introduce ambiguity or claim a substantially larger or different invention']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment sought is by way of disclaimer or correction, does not claim an invention substantially larger or different, is plainly expressed, and does not introduce ambiguity; therefore, leave to amend should be allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ["Allow the amendment of claim 3 by inserting the words 'not substantially exceeding 6 and' between the words 'permeability' and 'such'" "Respondent to pay appellant's costs"]