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
-
Hytera Comms Corp Ltd v Motorola Solutions [2024] FCAFC 168
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…
-
Sun Pharma ANZ PL v Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd [2025] FCA 44
PATENTS – patent for controlled release aripiprazole formulations and methods for preparing and using such formulations – validity of extension of term of patent – validity of claims – whether pharmaceutical substance per se – whether pharmaceutical substance can include formulations – whether formulations can only include substances which have therapeutic use – whether pharmaceutical…
-
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc v Anderson (No 2) [2024]FCA 1459
COPYRIGHT – circumvention devices – application by copyright owner under ss 116AN and 116AO of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (“the Act”) – interpretation of relevant definitions in s 10(1) of the Act – “technological protection measure” – “access control technological protection measure” – “controls access” – whether device, product technology or component requires application…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2024/2024fcafc0168
For more information, see the original judgement.
