| National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents | |
| Court: | High Court of Australia |
| Date Decided: | 6 December 1959 |
| Citations: | (1959) 102 CLR 252. |
| Judges: | Dixon CJ, Kitto and Windeyer JJ |
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]
The 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.
The 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.
(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.
(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]