Tag: Currently browsing "Full Federal Court"
Full Federal Court considers the meaning of “relevant to work in the relevant art” - 26 March 2008
Mallesons has reviewed the decision of Ajinomoto Co Inc v Nutrasweet Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 34.
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 12 Mar 2008 / 09:06 PM
- Category:
- Patents
Smartcard Television Piracy - Haddad v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 11
The Full Court decision of Haddad v Foxtell Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 11 has been delivered by Heerey, Sackville and McKerracher JJ. Their Honours dismissed the appeal with costs and maintained that there was unauthorised use of Foxtel smartcards (through use of ‘pirated’ Foxtel smartcards’. The sole ground of appeal was the argument that Foxtel did not make an ‘encoded broadcast’ within the meaning of section 135AL of the Copyright Act 1968.
Mr Kim Williams AM, Foxtel’s Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director has said that “today’s judgment by the Full Federal Court to dismiss the appeal highlights that STV piracy is a serious issue. In this instance FOXTEL had to pursue the matter privately however under new Federal legislation enacted after the time of the original action has extended what would constitute a criminal offence under Commonwealth law and now includes unauthorised access by end users. The Court’s decision sets a precedent that piracy of STV will not be tolerated. Harsh new criminal penalties will apply to those who engage in the unauthorised use of STV signals in the future. The recent reform of the Commonwealth’s copyright laws has provided a stepping stone for the STV sector to effectively stamp out piracy of both satellite and cable services which we will pursue vigorously. Piracy is theft and should be treated with all the severity that theft receives in other areas of society.”
Foxtel wins appeal in groundbreaking piracy case
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 24 Feb 2008 / 06:23 PM
- Category:
- Copyright
Blake Dawson - I.G.T. granted leave to appeal to the Full Federal Court
Blake Dawson reports that I.G.T. (Australia) Pty Ltd (I.G.T.) has been granted leave to appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision to reject its patent application entitled “Operation of Gaming Machines in a Linked Bonus Prize Winning Mode”. According to Blake Dawson, the patent application (Australian Patent Application Number 748263) relates to a method and a system for awarding a bonus prize in the playing of gaming machines. Blake Dawson reports that, on 9 October, Allsop J found that I.G.T.’s patent application was not novel in light of the Bennett Patent (Australian Patent Number 633469) and that I.G.T. propose to challenge each of the two bases upon which Allsop J found that the Bennett Patent deprived the claims of novelty.
Blake Dawson - I.G.T. granted leave to appeal to the Full Federal Court
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 12 Jan 2008 / 08:38 PM
- Category:
- Patents
Marie Wong - When must the Crown pay to use copyright material for the services of the State?
Marie Wong, Senior Associate at Deacons, reports that leave to appeal was granted to the applicant in Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales [2007] HCATrans 700 (16 November 2007) over the decision of Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales (2007) 240 ALR 249. Marie Wong discusses the Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), which is a declared “collecting society” for the purposes of the Copyright Act and represents copyright owners (such as authors, photographers, publishers and, relevantly, surveyors) and to administer the licensing of copyright works to the general community.
CAL originally approached the Copyright Tribunal for a determination of the terms on which the State of New South Wales could deal with survey plans prepared by members of the Surveyors’ Association. The matter was subsequently referred to the Full Federal Court in order to determine questions of law relevant to the Copyright Tribunal’s determination. Specifically, the Full Federal Court was required to determine who owned copyright in the survey plans and whether surveyors were entitled to receive royalties arising from the State Government’s use of the plans.
According to Marie Wong, the outcome of the High Court appeal may affect how government can continue to deal with third party works submitted to them for specific purposes.
When must the Crown pay to use copyright material for the services of the State?
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 06 Jan 2008 / 11:42 PM
- Category:
- Copyright
Issue estoppel in patent case
Alexia Mayer, Lawyer of Allens Arthur Robinson, reviews E I Du Pont de Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc [2007] FCAFC 163 in which the Full Federal Court considered whether a finding that a parent application lacked novelty necessarily encompassed a finding that a specific dependent claim within that application also lacked novelty, so as to raise an issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings relating to a claim of that scope in a divisional application.
Link to Issue estoppel in patent case
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 01 Jan 2008 / 06:30 PM
- Category:
- Patents
Davies Collison Cave - Pharmaceutical Extensions: A listing in the ARTG is an inclusion
Pharmaceutical Extensions: A listing in the ARTG is an inclusion - Paula de Bruyn, Associate at Davies Collison Cave reports on Pfizer Corp v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 190 and upholding by the Full Federal Court of the previous findings of the Commissioner of Patents and a single judge of the Federal Court:
- “where no pre-TGA marketing approval was given, an export listing in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), prior to registration to permit marketing in Australia, is to be considered as the first inclusion in the ARTG for the purpose of determining the first regulatory approval date in calculating a patent extension term”
- “the Court suggested that there could be circumstances under the present regime where certain exemptions or approvals, prior to actual inclusion in the ARTG, may be considered to be pre-TGA marketing approval and may establish the relevant date for the calculation of the patent extension term.”
Link to Davies Collison Cave article
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 13 Mar 2007 / 03:14 AM
- Category:
- Patents
Allens Arthur Robinson - Challenge to entitlement to patents
Challenge to entitlement of patents - Sarah Matheson, Partner and Anna Howard, Articled Clerk reports on the Full Federal Court decision of University of British Columbia and Anor v Conor Medsystems [2006] FCAFC 154:
- “The Full Court held that the facts to be assumed were insufficient, so it was inappropriate to determine the preliminary question, either as originally formulated before Justice Finkelstein or as reformulated for the appeal. The matter will be determined at trial”
- “Should the majority reasoning prevail, it will be important for joint patent applicants to ensure that:
- if deriving title from more than one inventor, each named inventorhas made a contribution to the invention as claimed; and
- when deleting, adding or amending claims prior to grant, each of the named inventors continues to be a person who has made a contribution to the invention as claimed; or
- if not the inventor, they are each otherwise a person who would be on the grant of the patent be entitled to have the patent assigned to them.”
Link to Allens Arthur Robinson article
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 16 Jan 2007 / 03:49 AM
- Category:
- Patents
Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187
The Full Federal Court decision in Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187has been handed down.
In the case, the Court had to decide whether Cooper (website designer) and E-Talk (ISP host) were liable for authorising infringement of copyright by providing a structured website to provide links to infringing MP3 files.
The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal.
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 18 Dec 2006 / 04:41 PM
- Category:
- Copyright
Blake Dawson Waldron - It’s not easy being green
It’s not easy being green- Jennifer French, Lawyer and Melinda Upton, Senior Associate report on Woolworths Ltd v BP plc [2006] FCAFC 132:
- “In a case which highlights the difficulties in obtaining trade mark protection for non-traditional trade marks such as colours, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision on 4 September 2006 refusing BP’s applicatiosn for registration of its colour green trade mark”
Link to Blake Dawson Waldron article
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 14 Dec 2006 / 02:49 PM
- Category:
- Trade Marks
Concrete v Parramatta Design & Developments
The High Court has today delivered its judgment in Concrete Pty Limited v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2006/55.html
First Glance
Concrete Pty Ltd (Concrete) (Costa & Associates acting) has succeeded in appealing to the High Court to overturn a decision by the Full Federal Court, which
Background
Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (Parramatta Design) (Hal Lawyers acting) provided architectural design services and was found to have prepared plans and drawings for a development on Nelson Bay (NSW) of 14 units. After a falling out with joint venture partners, a trustee was appointed for the sale of the site. However, Parramatta Design put the trustees on notice that “we are the designers and owners of the copyright of an approved [development approval] for the 14 unit development and that it would not grant a licence to the use of “our copyright or our plans”.
Concrete had purchased the land and later offered to pay Parramatta Design a licence to reproduce the plans and drawings for the 14 unit development. This offer was refused. At trial, Concrete asserted that it had an implied licence. This claim of defence was based on a claim that the licence between Parramatta Design and the joint venture partners extended in principle to any successor in the title to the land which had the benefit of the relevant development consent.
The High Court appeal dealt with whether Concrete had an implied licence to use architectural plans and drawings prepared by Parramatta Design for the purpose of undertaking the development in Nelson Bay. The High Court appeal also dealt with whether an apprehended bias could properly be established in regard to the conduct of the primary judge.
Decision
The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal but delivered separate judgments (Kirby and Crennan J delivering joint judgments) with the effect that Concrete possesses an implied licence to use the architectural plans and drawings and that the orders set by Branson, Kiefel and Finkelstein JJ are set aside
Related Posts
About this entry
- Published:
- 05 Dec 2006 / 07:50 PM
- Category:
- Copyright