-
Meeting the evidentiary burden for a search order
An Anton Piller Order is usually made without the presence of the respondent (ex parte) and consequently the Courts require the satisfaction of a high evidential threshold before granting orders of this nature. As stated in George Rofail v Landmark Recruitment Pty Ltd and Others [2004] NSWIRComm 260 (7 September 2004), they are usually made…
-
Is your confidential information truly protected?
This article examines the complex nuances around protecting confidential information, essential for commercial transactions. It looks at the quality of confidence, circumstances implying an obligation of confidence, and various Court cases to determine the confidentiality of information.
-
The risks of ‘manufactured’ business testimonials: lessons from the ACCC
The Federal Court has imposed hefty fines and corrective measures on A Whistle and Co Pty Ltd, a franchisor found guilty of breaching the Australian Consumer Law by publishing fake customer testimonials. This serves as a warning to businesses to engage in genuine and legitimate marketing activities, not deceptive practices.
-
Intellectual property theft and employee information theft
Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal (No 3) [2014] FCA 1129 (Leica Geosystems) is a notable court case involving an Anton Piller order and employee theft. Find out more about what this means for companies and their intellectual property rights.
-
Online copyright infringement and stolen websites in Australia
This article examines copyright infringement, using the case of Motorcycle Aftermarket Spares Pty Ltd v Tamworth Cycle Tune Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1433 as a warning to those who reproduce copyrighted material without permission. The Courts take a serious view of such actions.
-
Anton Piller orders – preventing evidence destruction
An Anton Piller order is an extraordinary remedy used to prevent evidence destruction. This article explores scenarios in which it may be granted and the Court safeguards imposed.
-
Ownership of employee inventions – disputing ownership of patents
Section 35(6) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) establishes a general rule that an employer will own the copyright in many types of works if they were created by an employee or apprentice, in the course of their employment. Unfortunately, there is no such legislative equivalent in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). The absence…
-
Reverse engineering of software – legal boundaries?
Reverse engineering software in Australia is complex, with legal implications and cases providing authority on “infringing” verses “non-infringing” reverse engineering. Courts have provided some protection to intellectual property (IP) through licence agreements and distinguishing between ideas and expressions of a program.
-
Dallas Buyers Club wins preliminary discovery order
The Federal Court of Australia has granted a controversial application that could allow copyright holders to identify and pursue alleged infringers of their work. Find out what conditions were imposed on the copyright holders and what this could mean for the future of online copyright infringement.
IP litigation and disputes
Make an enquiry
