Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Another (82/2015) [2016] ZASCA 56; 2017 (5) SA 283 (SCA); 2016 BIP 27 (SCA) (1 April 2016)

Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Another (82/2015) [2016] ZASCA 56; 2017 (5) SA 283 (SCA); 2016 BIP 27 (SCA) (1 April 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 16(2) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 confers a discretionary power on the Registrar to extend any time period specified in the Act or regulations, unless expressly excluded. Regulation 83 does not expressly limit or exclude this power, nor does it contain language preventing the Registrar from granting extensions after the expiry of the prescribed period. The court found that the deeming provision in Regulation 83 does not override the statutory discretion provided by section 16(2). The court further held that statutory interpretation principles dictate that a regulation cannot override a statute, and remedial powers should be interpreted...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 56
Parties
Appellant: Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Vodacom (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Registrar of Patents
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2016
Case Number
82/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; decision of the court below set aside and substituted.
Judges
Navsa, Wallis, Petse, Tsoka, Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Patents Act 1978, Extension of Time, Regulation 83, Restoration of Patent, Statutory Interpretation
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patents Act 1978 Extension of Time Regulation 83 Restoration of Patent Statutory Interpretation

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Registrar of Patents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar of Patents has the discretionary power to extend the time period for filing a counterstatement under Regulation 83 after its expiry.
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 83 expressly limits the Registrar's power under section 16(2) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978.
  3. 3 Whether the application for restoration of a patent is deemed abandoned if the counterstatement is not filed within the prescribed period.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 16(2) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 confers a discretionary power on the Registrar to extend any time period specified in the Act or regulations, unless expressly excluded. Regulation 83 does not expressly limit or exclude this power, nor does it contain language preventing the Registrar from granting extensions after the expiry of the prescribed period. The court found that the deeming provision in Regulation 83 does not override the statutory discretion provided by section 16(2). The court further held that statutory interpretation principles dictate that a regulation cannot override a statute, and remedial powers should be interpreted...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; decision of the court below set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The decision of the court below is set aside and substituted as follows: 'The appeal against the second respondent’s decision to grant the appellant an extension of time for the filing of its counter-claim is dismissed with costs.'