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
-
Novartis AG v Pharmacor Pty Limited (No 3) [2024] FCA 1307
PATENTS – infringement – standard patent for a pharmaceutical composition containing certain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) – claim construction – whether claim covers a pharmaceutical composition where the API is in the form of a complex in which the ions are associated by non-covalent bonds PATENTS – identity of the person skilled in the art…
-
Sandoz AG v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH [2024] FCAFC 135
PATENTS – whether skilled person could be reasonably expected to have ascertained international patent publication – where patent database would have been one of the databases searched by person skilled in the art – where expert provided with search results which formed a subset of larger set of search results which would have been derived…
-
Nutrafruit Pty Ltd v Fivefifty5 Super Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1218
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to withdraw an admission – where first to third respondents admitted that there have been at least 15,000 Queen Garnet trees on relevant property – where precise number of trees remains an issue in the proceedings – where no prejudice to the applicant
