Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T13:30:42.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scope of ‘Manner of Manufacture’ under the Patents Act 1990 (CTH) after Grant V Commissioner of Patents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Ann L Monotti
Ann L Monotti*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the time of the Statute of Monopolies 1623, 21 Jac 1, c 3 ('Statute of Monopolies’), the flexible concept of a ‘manner of manufacture’ was understood to involve some form of limitation which was expressed in the statute as being ‘mischievous to the State … or hurt of trade, or generallie inconvenient'. Years of judicial consideration resulted in various classes of subject matter being carved out as unpatentable. Apart from non-contentious material such as discoveries, ideas and principles of nature, these classes included methods of medical treatment for humans, horticultural and agricultural methods, computer programs, presentations of information, plans and business schemes. The classes were relatively clear by 1959 when the High Court in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents was asked to judge the patentability of an invention in an excluded class, namely a horticultural method. The trouble was that there were no consistent rationales to justify the excluded classes and to distinguish patentable from non-patentable subject matter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 461 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

My thanks to the two anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier version of this work.

References

1 Statute of Monopolies s 6.

2 For a detailed discussion of the development of inherent patentability and restrictions on this concept, both prior to and after National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 (‘NRDC’), see Justine, Pila, ‘Inherent Patentability in Anglo-Australian Law: A History’ (2003) 14 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 109Google Scholar.

3 (1959) 102 CLR 252.

4 Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 (methods of medical treatment); International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218; CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260 (computer programs); Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62, 69 (plans and schemes).

5 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62, 69.; Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 113 FCR 110.

6 Although many cases have considered the meaning of ‘manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies’, NRDC remains the binding authority for determining what is patentable: Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62, 64.

7 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 18(2) (human beings, and the biological processes for their generation), 18(3) (for innovation patents — plants and animals, and the biological processes for the generation of plants and animals), 50(1).

8 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 18(2).

9 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 18(3). The need for this exclusion was explored by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (‘ACIP’) in ACIP, Should Plant and Animal Subject Matter be Excluded from Protection by the Innovation Patent? (November, 2004).

10 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 50(1)(a) (standard patents), 101B(2)(d) (innovation patents).

11 Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1958–59) 102 CLR 233; Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Ltd v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 99 FCR 151.

12 Opened for signature 5 October 1973, 1065 UNTS 254 (entered into force 7 October 1977) (‘European Patent Convention’).

13 Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health, Report No 99 (2004); Miranda, Forsyth, ‘Biotechnology, Patents and Public Policy: A Proposal for Reform in Australia’ (2000) 11 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 202Google Scholar. There is extensive literature in this area — see Sam, Ricketson and Megan, Richardson, Intellectual Property: Cases, Materials and Commentary (3rd ed, 2005) 718Google Scholar n 4; Luigi, Palombi, ‘Patentable Subject Matter, TRIPS and the European Biotechnology Directive: Australia and Patenting Human Genes’ (2003) 26 University of New South Wales Law Journal 782Google Scholar.

14 ACIP, Report on a Review of the Patenting of Business Systems (September, 2003); Sam, Ricketson, ‘Business Method Patents — A Matter of Convenience?’ (2003) Intellectual Property Quarterly 97Google Scholar; Andrew, Christie, ‘Some Observations on the Requirement of Inherent Patentability in the Context of Business Method Patents’ (2000) 43 Intellectual Property Forum 16Google Scholar.

15 As to the evolving nature of patentable subject matter to include inventions in these areas see Pila, above n 2.

16 Stephen John Grant [2004] APO 11 (26 May 2004); Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 67 IPR 1; Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FRC 62.

17 (1942) 60 RPC 1.

18 Standard Oil Development Co’s Application (1951) 68 RPC 114; Re Application by Bovingdon (1946) 64 RPC 20.

19 Re Application by Cementation Co Ltd (1945) 62 RPC 151; Re Application by Rantzen (1946) 64 RPC 63; Re Application by Elton & Leda Chemicals Ltd (1957) RPC 267.

20 NRDC (1959) 102 CLR 252, 269.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid 269.

23 Ibid 271.

24 Ibid 275 (citations omitted).

25 Ibid 276.

26 Ibid 277 (emphasis added).

27 Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611, 617 (Barwick CJ); Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 205, 233 (Gummow J).

28 International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218, 226 (Burchett J).

29 (1994) 51 FCR 260 (‘CCOM’).

30 Ibid 295 (emphasis added).

31 Ibid 271.

32 Ibid 275.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid 276.

35 Ibid 277.

36 Ibid 276.

37 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62, 68.

38 Stephen John Grant [2004] APO 11 (26 May 2004); Peter Szabo and Associates Pty Ltd [2005] APO 24 (5 May 2005) [29].

39 Peter Szabo and Associates Pty Ltd [2005] APO 24 (5 May 2005) [29].

40 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 3, annex 1C (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) (entered into force 1 January 1995) (‘TRIPS Agreement’).

41 NRDC (1959) 102 CLR 252, 259.

42 Stephen John Grant [2004] APO 11 (26 May 2004) [28].

43 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 67 IPR 1.

44 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62.

45 Stephen John Grant [2004] APO 11 (26 May 2004) [2].

46 Pursuant to the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 62(1).

47 Pursuant to the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 101A(b).

48 Stephen John Grant [2004] APO 11 (26 May 2004) [16], citing Cooper’s Application (1902) 19 RPC 53.

49 Pursuant to s 101F(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

50 Stephen John Grant [2004] APO 11 (26 May 2004) [1].

51 Ibid [20].

52 Ibid [19].

53 Ibid [21].

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid [28].

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid [25].

60 Ibid [28].

61 Ibid [26] (emphasis in original).

62 Ibid [28].

63 Stephen John Grant [2004] APO 11 (26 May 2004) [27].

64 Under s 101B(2)(b) of the Patents Act 1900 (Cth), a ground for revocation of a patent is that the invention does not comply with s 18(1A)(a) of that Act, which requires an invention to be ‘a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies’.

65 Charles, Lawson, ‘Grant’s Application: It’s Time For a New Approach to a “Public Interest” Exclusion From Patentability’ (2005) 13 Journal of Law and Medicine 135, 143Google Scholar.

66 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 67 IPR 1, 3.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid 3, 5.

70 Ibid 3.

71 Ibid, citing NRDC (1959) 102 CLR 252, 269.

72 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 67 IPR 1, 5.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid 6.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid (emphasis added).

78 NRDC (1959) 102 CLR 252, 269.

79 Statute of Monopolies s 6.

80 NRDC (1959) 102 CLR 252, 275 (citations omitted).

81 Industrial Property Advisory Committee, Parliament of Australia, Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia (1984) [1]–[2] (emphasis added).

82 Minister for Science, ‘Government Response to the Report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, “Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia“’ (1986) 56 Australian Official Journal of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs 1462Google Scholar. The Patents Bill 1990 (Cth) was a ‘reincarnation’ of that earlier Patents Bill 1989 (Cth).

83 Mr Crean accepted the second reading speech for the Patents Bill 1989 (Cth) which was introduced on 1 June 1989 by the Hon Barry Jones, the then Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. In his speech, the Hon Barry Jones repeated and accepted the policy expressed by IPAC: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 1 June 1989, 3479 (Barry Jones, Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business). This Bill was not debated before the dissolution of Parliament prior to the March 1990 election.

84 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 October 1990, 2565 (Simon Crean, Minister for Science and Technology) (emphasis added).

85 An appeal from Branson J’s decision to the Full Federal Court was filed on 2 September 2005 under File No. NSD1573/2005. See Appeals from Single Judge Decisions to the Full Court (2006) Federal Court of Australia <http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/ctlist/ctlist_appeals.html> at 19 November 2006.

86 For a recent judicial application of this approach see Finkelstein J in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524, 559.

87 Ibid 566–7.

88 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 67 IPR 1, 5.

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid.

92 Pila, above n 2, 129.

93 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62, 73.

94 Ibid, 69.

95 Ibid, 64, with reference to NRDC (1959) 102 CLR 252.

96 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 154 FCR 62, 69.

97 Ibid 73.

98 Ibid.

99 Ibid 71.

100 (2006) 66 IPR 370 [36].

101 Ibid [3].

102 Ibid [36].

103 (2001) 113 FCR 110.

104 Ibid 137.

105 Grant v Commissioner of Patents (2006) 67 IPR 1, 5.

106 Lawson, above n 65, 146.