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
-
Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Limited [2023] FCA 777
The Federal Court of Australia has granted an injunction involving intellectual property rights, copyright, and alleged infringement of copyright works online. Learn more about this groundbreaking ruling and its implications.
-
Calix Limited v Grenof Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 378
PATENTS – claim for method of producing hydroxide slurries – construction of claim – whether claim infringed – whether s 121A of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (“the Act”) applied to place onus on the respondents – whether Court satisfied that it was very likely that respondents’ product was made by the patented process – whether claim…
-
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (17 August 2022)
Patents – Invention – Manner of manufacture – Where appellant manufactured electronic gaming machines (“EGMs”) – Where appellant owned four innovation patents concerning various embodiments of EGM – Where specification described claimed invention as combination of player interface, being physical features of EGM, and game controller, being computerised components interacting with player interface to implement…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2024/2024fcafc0168
For more information, see the original judgement.
