We are currently developing a new site to host the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure. The BETA version of this site is now available for you to review. The information and content displayed in the BETA site is only available for testing purposes. Do not use or reference the information in the BETA site when making any decisions or actions regarding IP rights. Multiple Addressees

Date Published

In Osram Lamp Works Ltd. v Pope's Electric Lamp Co. Ltd. (1917) 34 RPC 369 at page 391, it was stated:

"Where questions of interpretation or sufficiency arise, the court must ascertain the persons to whom the specification is addressed, and when the specification deals with technical matters, must instruct itself as to the technical knowledge which those persons may reasonably be supposed to have possessed at the date of the Patent ... These persons may be assumed to possess not only a reasonable amount of commonsense, but also a competent knowledge of the art or arts which have to be called into play in carrying the patentee's direction into effect."

and further:

"... in carrying out the directions given by the patentee it may well be necessary to call in aid more than one art. Some of the directions contained in a specification may have to be carried out by skilled mechanics, others by competent chemists. In such a case, the mechanic and the chemist must be assumed to co-operate for the purpose in view, each making good any deficiency in the other's technical equipment."

In General Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd. v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. [1972] RPC 457 at page 482, it was reiterated that the addressee may in fact be a team:

"the skilled addressee is in effect a composite entity - a typical chief compounder and a typical scientific adviser ...".

See also American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Limited (1972) RPC 215 at page 245 and Unilever Australia Ltd. v Colgate-Palmolive Co. (1982) AOJP 1355.

Back to top