## Facts

- A U.S. corporation owned a United Kingdom patent covering a metallurgical bonding method, filed in 1950 with priority from a 1949 U.S. application.
- The patentee sought a five-year extension under Patents Act 1949 § 24(1), alleging inability to exploit the invention during 1950–1953 due to nickel shortages connected to the Korean conflict.
- The Comptroller-General opposed the extension, taking the view that the Korean conflict was not “hostilities” within § 24 and that the shortages were not sufficiently attributable to the conflict.
- The parties requested an official statement from the Foreign Office concerning (a) whether North Korea was treated as a “foreign State” and (b) the nature of the conflict.
- The Foreign Office stated that officials operated as the government of North Korea during 1950–1953, that the United Kingdom did not recognize that government as sovereign, and that the North Korean attack was treated as an act of war (not an insurrection or civil war).
- The High Court heard, as a preliminary issue of statutory construction, whether hostilities involving British forces and North Korea could satisfy § 24’s requirement of “hostilities between His Majesty and any foreign State,” despite non-recognition.

## Issues

1. Whether “any foreign State” in Patents Act 1949 § 24(1) can include an entity exercising effective control over defined territory despite the United Kingdom’s non-recognition of it as a sovereign state.
2. Whether and to what extent the Foreign Office’s statement on recognition and the character of the conflict is conclusive for domestic statutory interpretation.
3. Whether the Korean conflict constituted “hostilities between His Majesty and any foreign State” within § 24(1), including where British forces acted under United Nations command.

## Decision

- The court held that, for § 24(1), “foreign State” may include an unrecognized entity that has defined territory and an effective government in control.
- The court accepted that there were “hostilities” between British forces and North Korean forces within the meaning of § 24(1), notwithstanding British participation under a UN mandate.
- The Foreign Office’s views were treated as authoritative evidence on matters of recognition and the government’s characterization of the conflict, but not as determinative of the statutory meaning of “foreign State.”
- The preliminary question was resolved in the patentee’s favor; factual questions (loss and causation) remained for determination in the extension process.

## Legal Principles

- A domestic statute referring to a “foreign State” may apply to an unrecognized de facto state where the entity has defined territory and an effective government exercising control.
- Non-recognition by the executive does not automatically preclude courts from treating an entity as a “foreign State” for limited statutory purposes.
- Executive statements are authoritative on facts of recognition and foreign-relations characterizations, but courts retain responsibility for construing statutory terms.
- Participation by national forces under United Nations auspices can still amount to “hostilities” between the Crown and a foreign state for purposes of domestic war-loss relief provisions.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that § 24(1)’s reference to hostilities with “any foreign State” was not confined to states formally recognized by the United Kingdom and could include North Korea as a de facto state; the Foreign Office’s position informed the factual setting but did not control statutory construction, leaving the patentee to prove loss and causal connection in subsequent proceedings.


In re Al-Fin Corp.'s Patent, [1970] Ch. 160 (Ch. Div. 1969)