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
-
Chapcon Building Services Pty Ltd v Spectrum Homes Qld Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 873
COPYRIGHT – statement of claim alleged that director of company caused, authorised, directed or procured company to engage in conduct alleged to infringe copyright in plans – no material facts pleaded to support conclusion – no evidence adduced on summary judgment application to demonstrate any foundation exists to make allegation – uncontested evidence adduced by…
-
ToolGen Incorporated v Fisher (No 2) [2023] FCA 794
PATENTS – appeal against decision of delegate of Commissioner of Patents upholding opposition to patent application (“PA”) for compositions and methods using the CRISPR/Cas9 system for genome editing in eukaryotic cells – identity of person skilled in the art (“PSA”) – whether PSA comprises a team including a microbiologist with expertise in CRISPR/Cas system in…
-
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.
