Grant v The Commissioner of Patents [2007] HCATrans 126 (18 April 2007)

Last Updated: 23 April 2007

[2007] HCATrans 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B27 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

STEVEN JOHN GRANT

Applicant

and

THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 18 APRIL 2007, AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Heerey, Kiefel and Bennett JJ). By those orders, the Full Court unanimously dismissed the applicant's appeal against orders of a single judge of the Federal Court (Branson J). Branson J dismissed the applicant's appeal against a decision of a delegate of the respondent, objecting to the applicant's innovation patent. Her Honour concluded that the applicant's "Asset Protection Method" was not a manner of manufacture, as required for a "patentable invention" under s 18(1A)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

As the application for special leave is made out of time, the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 dispensing with compliance with r 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004. We would make that order.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The application does not present a suitable vehicle for the consideration of any question relating to the patenting of purported business methods. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the concurrent findings and conclusions of the primary judge and the Full Court of the Federal Court.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED