major Australian patent cases

This page highlights major Australian patent cases.

Rogers v Commissioner of Patents (1910) 10 CLR 701

Griffin v Isaacs (1938) 12 ALJR 169

Samuel Taylor v SA Brush Co (1950) 83 CLR 616

Fomento v Mentmore Manufacturing Co [1956] RPC 87

National Research Development Corp v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252

Sunbeam Corp v Morphy-Richards (Australia) Pty Ltd (1961) 35 ALJR 212

Rolls-Royce Ltd's Application [1963] RPC 251

General Tire & Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co [1972] RPC 457

Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611

Graham Hart Pty Ltd v S W Hart & Co Ltd (1977) 141 CLR 305

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253

Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262

Windsurfing International Inc v Petit [1984] 2 NSWLR 196

Rehm v Websters Security Systems (1988) 11 IPR 289

Nicaro Holdings v Martin Engineering (1990) 16 IPR 545

International Business Machines v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218

Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 171

Anaesthetic Supplies v Rescare (1994) 50 FCR 1

CCOM v Jiejing (1994) 51 FCR 260

NV Phillips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International (1995) 183 CLR 655

Advanced Building Systems v Ramset Fasteners (1998) 194 CLR 171

MJA Scientifics International v S C Johnson & Son (1998) 43 IPR 287

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding (2000) 46 IPR 553

Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2000) 51 IPR 375

Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 51 IPR 327

Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 58

Peter Szabo & Associates Pty Ltd [2005] APO 24

Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2005] FCA 1100
leading Australian case on the patentability of business
method patents - single trial judge decides that Grant's 'pure'
business method was not patentable subject matter.

Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) FCAFC 120
Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia affirms decision on different grounds - holds that invention was a "mere scheme", "mere working directions" and "mere intellectual information" thus not patentable subject matter.




   next page  (landmarks)