PATENTS – indirect infringement – appellant found to have infringed respondent’s patent (Australian Patent No 2005275355) relating to digital mobile radios (DMRs) using Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) technology to divide frequency channel – appeal against finding of infringement – disputed issues of construction – appeal against finding of validity – whether the invention claimed involved an inventive step – whether the invention claimed is useful – whether the invention claimed is a manner of manufacture – appeal dismissed
PATENTS – validity – respondent’s patent (Australian Patent No. 2006276960) relating to DMRs using TDMA technology found to be invalid by reason that the invention claimed did not involve an inventive step – cross-appeal against that finding dismissed – cross-contentions concerning manner of manufacture and infringement also dismissed
COPYRIGHT – indirect infringement – respondent owner of Australian copyright in 11 computer programs in source code – appeal against finding of infringement by the importation into Australia of DMR devices containing firmware in object code, where firmware compiled from appellants’ source code in China and installed into DMR devices in China, and where appellants’ source code developed using respondent’s source code – whether the appellants copied a substantial part of the respondent’s copyright works – whether fact that copied parts of the respondent’s copyright works derived from earlier versions of the respondent’s computer renders them not original for the purposes of infringement, such that the copied parts are not a substantial part – whether appellants otherwise copied a substantial part of the respondent’s copyright works – the correct approach to assessing the copying of a substantial part – where appellants deliberately deleted source code to suppress evidence which might assist in a copyright infringement suit – application of the maxim omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem (all things are presumed against the wrongdoer) – primary judge’s approach to assessing the copying of a substantial part shown to be in error
COPYRIGHT – requirement of knowledge for the purposes of ss 37 and 38 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) – whether relevant executives who undertook or supervised copying were acting within the scope of their authority – principles concerning attribution of knowledge to a corporation – no error shown
COPYRIGHT – award of additional damages under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act – discretionary decision – no error in the exercise of discretion shown
Recent cases about patent infringement
-
Oxford Nanopore Technologies Plc v MGI Aust PL [2025] FCA 572
PRACTICE AND PROCEUDRE – application to set aside notice to produce served on prospective applicant – where prospective respondent’s nanopore sequencing devices may fall within the scope of one or more claims of patents owned by the prospective applicant – where category 1 seeks documents recording or evidencing prospective applicant’s belief that it may have…
-
MSA 4X4 Accessories PL v Clearview Towing Mirrors PL (Discovery) [2025] FCA 375
PATENTS – discovery – significant claim for damages following liability judgment – discovery application successful with modifications made to categories of discovery sought Related cases about Patent disputes Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0375For more information, see the original judgement.
-
ABC PL v Isentia PL [2025] FCAFC 49
COPYRIGHT – statutory construction – section 183(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – meaning of “for the services of the Commonwealth or State” – whether provision of media monitoring services to government clients within s 183(1) – appeal dismissed Related cases – Copyright infringement Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2025/2025fcafc0049For more information, see the original…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2024/2024fcafc0168
For more information, see the original judgement.
