词条 | National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents |
释义 |
| name = National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents | court = High Court of Australia | image = Coat of Arms of Australia.svg | date decided = 6 December 1959 | citations = {{cite AustLII|HCA|67|1959|litigants= |parallelcite=(1959) 102 CLR 252}} | judges = Dixon CJ, Kitto and Windeyer JJ | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | appealed to = | opinions= }}National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, also known as the NRDC case,[1] was a significant Australian patent law case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 December 1959. The case was important in clarifying what is meant by "manner of manufacture" in respects of patent applications in accordance with the Patents Act 1952 (Cth).[2] FactsThe National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) discovered a new method to apply known chemicals to the soil so as to kill weeds but not the crops. The chemicals were known to science but were never used in the process of eradicating weeds. NRDC applied for a patent for the new process. The Commissioner of Patents rejected the application on the grounds that it was not a "manner of manufacture" under section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies because
NRDC appealed under s. 49(4) to the Court as the Appeal Tribunal for the purposes of the Act. The case was argued before a Full Court. The complete specification in the present case contains six claims. Those numbered 4, 5 and 6 are for selective herbicidal compositions, and are not here in question. Claims 1, 2 and 3 are in these terms:
The Commissioner did not consider the new process a manner of manufacture and argued that the definition of invention is restricted to vendible products and processes for their production, and excludes all agricultural and horticultural processes. The appellant (NRDC), argued that the new process can be considered a "manner of manufacture" subject to the definition in the Patents Act 1990 and grant of privilege under s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies if a process produces, either immediately or ultimately, an economically useful result. IssuesThe issue for the court was to determine if this new process of weed – killing constituted a "manner of manufacture" and could therefore be considered a patentable invention. The court had to consider whether it is enough that a process produces a useful result or whether it is necessary that some physical thing is either brought into existence or so affected as the better to serve man's purposes. Legal issues considered
(a) results in the production of some vendible product or (b) improves or restores to its former condition a vendible product or (c) has the effect of preserving from deterioration some vendible product to which it is applied[6] The outcome of the NRDC case, reduced these rules to guidelines and the notion of "vendible" and "product" should be given a broad interpretation, pursuant to the broad interpretation of "manner of manufacture" in section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies. Decision(i) Processes may be patented provided that it produces a material advantage and has a new and useful effect that produces a physical product.[7] (ii) NRDC's new process made use of existing chemicals that had never been used in eradicating weeds. A new use of a known substance is patentable provided the use takes advantage of a previously unknown property.[8] That is it must be used in a way that it has never been used or thought to use previously. Therefore, in this case, it is the process not the article that constitutes the invention.[8] (iii) The outcome of this new process was only arrived at by scientific ingenuity and research and is considered a vendible product because it created an artificial state of affairs in respect of weeds and crops and achieved an economically useful result. (iv) Agricultural and horticultural processes are not outside the limits of patentable inventions provided they are not excluded by any other of the "traditional principles" as in the case of NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd,[9] and the new agricultural and horticultural processes produce a new and useful product.[10] References1. ^1 {{cite AustLII|HCA|67|1959|litigants=National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (NRDC case) |date=6 December 1959 |parallelcite=(1959) 102 CLR 252 |courtname=High Court}}. 2. ^1 {{cite Legislation AU|Cth|num_act|pa1952421952136|Patents Act 1952}}. 3. ^Re Application by Standard Oil Development Co (1951) 68 {{abbr|RPC|Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases}} 114. LawCte records 4. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|71|1959|litigants=Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd |date=10 September 1959 |parallelcite=(1959) 102 CLR 232 |courtname=High Court}}. 5. ^G.E.C.'s Application (1943) 60 {{abbr|RPC|Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases}} 1. LawCte records 6. ^IP Australia 2009, Patent Manual of Practice and Procedures 2.9.2.2 7. ^Lexis Nexis, Australian Encyclopedia of Forms & Precedents, (at 16 September 2009), Patents, [1596–1675] 8. ^1 IP Australia 2009 9. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|15|1995|litigants=NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd |date=9 November 1995 |parallelcite=(1995) 183 CLR 655 |courtname=High Court}}. 10. ^IP Australia 2009, 2.9.2.15 5 : High Court of Australia cases|Australian property law|Australian patent case law|1959 in case law|1959 in Australian law |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。