Blocking injunctions – the Bill

April 1st, 2015

The Commonwealth Government has introduced into Parliament the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. This bill will implement the second (or third) of the Government’s online infringement proposals.

The Bill would insert a new s 115A into the Act. Under s 115A, a copyright owner would have a right to apply to the Federal Court for an injunction against a carriage service provider[1] requiring the carriage service provider to take reasonable steps to block access to on online location outside Australia the primary purpose of which is to infringe copyright (whether in Australia or not).

The EM is at pains to stress that the website must be outside Australia – otherwise the copyright owner could sue directly – and its primary purpose must be copyright infringement. Thus, the EM says services like Youtube, iTunes and so on would not be exposed to the risk of injunction.

The bill does not prescribe what steps would be reasonable (to attempt) to block access, but presumably guidance may be sought from English decisions on this issue.

In deciding whether or not to grant the injunction, the Court will be directed to take into account a range of factors including, in particular, the flagrancy of the infringement and the proportionality of blocking access to the extent of the infringement.

Provision is also made for the person operating the website to be, or become, a party to the proceeding and to apply after an injunction has been granted for it to be rescinded or varied.

The carriage service provider will be liable for costs only if it enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings. The bill does not make provision for whom should bear the costs of implementing and maintaining the injunction.

The injunctions provided by the English courts include a mechanism for copyright holders to “update” the webiste addresses so that, if the website operator changes the URL, it is an administrative exercise to notify the ISP. The Bill does not appear specifically to contemplate this, and it is unclear whether the Federal Court would, or should, adopt such a mechanism.

In addition to discussion of blocking methods, the Cartier[2] ruling in England includes an interesting discussion of the costs of such applications and also the costs incurred by the ISPs in implementing the injunctions. Apparently, after the initial cases, such an application typically cost the copyright owners around £14,000 with a further fee of around £3,600 per year per website for monitoring. The costs to ISPs reported by the judge ranged from a “low four figure sum per month” to a “low six figure sum a year”.

The Cartier case concerned websites infringing trade marks, not copyright. One might wonder whether the Australian law should also extend to trade marks?

The Senate has referred the Bill to its Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee for review. There is plainly not much to discuss about the bill, as the committee is due to report back by 13 May 2015 and you must make your submissions, if any, by 16 April 2015.

Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (pdf)
Explanatory Memorandum (pdf)


  1. For you and me, that’s Telstra, Optus, iiNet/TPG, Foxtel etc., but real lawyers should go via s10 to here (take a tent and all necessary provisions and we’ll see you in several years).  ?
  2. Also known as Richemont after the third claimant.  ?

Clip to Evernote

Rosuvastatin goes to the High Court

March 19th, 2015

The High Court has allowed special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision in AstraZeneca v Apotex (“Rosuvastatin”).

From the special leave transcript, it looks like the main issue will be the operation of s 7(3) and the basis on which a reference ascertained for the purposes of s 7(3) may be combined with common general knowledge under s 7(2).

In Rosuvastatin, a Full Bench of 5 justices held that the “starting point” identified in the patent could be used as the “starting point” for testing whether the solution in the patent was obvious only when shown to be part of the prior art base. The Full Court nonetheless held the patent was invalid as a s 7(3) reference, the Watanabe paper, was added to the common general knowledge.

From the special leave transcript, it appears that all parties were in agreement that the person skilled in the art would undertake a literature search. The resulting search would have thrown up a number of documents. AstraZeneca argues that the Full Court erred in allowing the Watanabe paper to be used as a s 7(3) reference. Its main argument appears to be that the search would have thrown up at least 2 papers, Watanabe and Aoki. AstraZeneca argues that, before the Watanabe paper can be combined with common general knowledge under s 7(2), it needs to be shown that the person skilled in the art would have chosen the Watanabe paper over Aoki. According to AstraZeneca, however, the evidence did not establish that. Again according to Astrazeneca, there was evidence that the skilled person could choose either paper and, if Aoki was chosen, would fail:

If you had gone down the NK-104 path you fail – a relative fail. If you had gone down the other one, you win. The evidence of Professor O’Brien was – others can reasonably make one choice or another. Dr Reece did not even venture on the issue as to which one he would go down.

A second point that AstraZeneca argues is that to choose Watanabe the skilled person would have needed to refer first to Aoki. That is, it argues that it was necessary to engage in impermissible masoning.

If AstraZeneca succeeds, there will also be a dispute about entitlement issues and the operation of new s 22A and 138(4).

No doubt more will become clearer when the appeal documents are posted on the High Court’s website.

Astrazeneca AB & Anor v Apotex Pty Ltd; Astrazeneca AB & Anor v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd; Astrazeneca AB & Anor v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd [2015] HCATrans 58

 

Clip to Evernote

What conduct makes novelty destroying information publicly available

March 17th, 2015

In finding (2:1) that the primary judge had wrongly held that most of the claims in Damorgold’s patent were invalid because they lacked novelty, the Full Court confirmed that the novelty test under the 1990 Act is stricter than the old law.[1]

Damorgold’s patent relates to a mechanism for raising and lowering a blind. As characterised by Bennett J at [6], claim 1 was a combination of some 27 integers.

The Full Court upheld the primary judge’s finding that a Mr Horner had imported into Australia and shown to some potential customers a product which embodied all the integers in the relevant claims of Damorgold’s patent notwithstanding the imperfections in the evidence.

Although Mr Horner had been showing the product to potential customers to solicit sales, the evidence was that he did not in fact sell any. Nor did he leave any samples with anyone.

Mr Horner only showed the product to his potential customers in its assembled form. It was not possible, however, to tell how the product worked in its assembled form. To ascertain the internal componentry and how all the parts worked together, it was necessary to dissassemble it – to pull the product apart. And that was never done.

Section 7(1)(a) in the form applicable [2] provided that a claim in a patent was taken to be novel unless it was shown not to be novel in light of prior art information made publicly available in a single document or through doing a single act.[3]

The trial judge considered that a potential customer could have asked to see how the product worked and, if they had done so, Mr Horner would have shown them or allowed them to disassemble it; disassembly (and re-assembly) would have been easy. Therefore, his Honour held the novelty destroying information was made publicly available.

On appeal, Bennett J and Yates J held that the requirement in 7(1)(a) that the information be made publicly available meant the question was what information did the prior use communicate (or make available) to the public. As the demonstrations to the public in the assembled form did not disclose the internal workings of the product, the information communicated to the public did not disclose all the integers of any claim. Therefore, the attack on novelty failed.

Bennett J pointed out at [11] that different consequences flowed from whether the prior art relied on was a document or an act:

The question is whether an act can be identified that did in fact make the information being the integers of the invention publicly available. This is not the same requirement for anticipation by prior publication, which is satisfied if the information is in a document which is publicly available. (emphasis supplied)

In his opinion concurring with Bennett J, Yates J was at pains to stress that nothing he said should be taken as dealing with the situation where there had in fact been a sale or a sample had been given to and retained bya potential customer.

In dissent, Jessup J agreed with the primary judge that the appropriate question was what information would have been conveyed by the use.[4]

Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 31


  1. As I was junior counsel for the appellant, this post will aim just to identify the court’s ruling.  ?
  2. The applicable prior art base was the form before the amendments made by the Patents Amendment Act 2001 so acts of prior use had to be done in Australia.  ?
  3. Bennett J’s emphasis.  ?
  4. For example at [61], [64], [68] (emphasis supplied).  ?

Clip to Evernote

Springboard injunctions and patents

March 4th, 2015

In December, Beach J found AUG infringed Streetworx’ innovation patent for a street light fitting. Now, his Honour has granted an injunction restraining AUG from further infringing the patent, but has refused to grant a “springboard injunction” or order delivery up.

Before the trial, AUG had secured contracts with two municipal councils, Monash and Moonee Valley, to supply, respectively, 8,000 and 6,000 infringing light fittings. The lights have yet to be supplied. AUG couldn’t negotiate a royalty or licence fee with Streetworx so it could supply. Therefore, it sought to modify its fittings so they no longer infringed. Streetworx sought the “springboard injunction” to block that supply on the basis that AUG secured the contracts with the infringing product and should not be allowed to take the benefit of that infringement.

Beach J accepted that the Court does have power to order a “springboard injunction” of the kind sought.

Beach J accepted Streetworx’ argument that but for the infringing conduct there would not have been any contract to supply.[1] However, that was not enough to secure the “springboard injunction” as his Honour considered it was also necessary to consider the quality of the advantage obtained by the infringement.

[81] …. The quality of the unwarranted advantage needs to be considered. In the scenario where the relevant integers had no causal significance (ie absent the relevant integers the contract would have been awarded for the product in any event), the nature and quality of the unwarranted advantage is less egregious than if the presence of the relevant integers in the product played a critical role in the decision to award the contract. So, in that more nuanced fashion, it is relevant to consider the causal significance of the presence of the relevant integers to the decision to award the contract. The more the unwarranted advantage is causally tied to the significance of the presence of the relevant integers, the stronger the basis for the injunction and vice versa. The concept of unwarranted advantage contains within it a normative aspect and has a spectrum quality rather than Streetworx’s simplistic binary characterisation of it either being established or not established. In other words, there are degrees of unwarranted advantage which are to be considered and which are not foreclosed from consideration by merely demonstrating “but for” factual causation as Streetworx has demonstrated in the present case.

In this case, Beach J considered that damages or an account of profits would be an adequate remedy.[2] Secondly, the qualitative advantage gained by the infringement was low. So far as the evidence went, the infringing features were not a selling point in AUG achieving the sales. Although there was no evidence directly from the Councils themselves, this was supported by the fact they were prepared to accept the non-infringing products in place of the infringing fittings. Thirdly, his Honour took into account the impact of the proposed injunction on the innocent Councils in a market where there were limited suppliers.

His Honour also refused to order delivery up as the fittings had been modified so that they no longer infringed.

Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 140


  1. If the fitting to be supplied had not been itself the infringement – a holistic infringement, but rather merely a component such as the brake of a car, Beach J may have been prepared to take the more nuanced approach advocated by AUG at the causation stage.  ?
  2. This is an unusual consideration at the final injunction stage as typically the Courts will not condone future infringing conduct. Here, of course, his Honour found the conduct would not be infringing. His Honour did order that the price of escaping the injunction would be an undertaking from AUG to pay its gross margin from the sales into a trust account pending the damages/account inquiry.  ?

Clip to Evernote

Three strikes in Australia

March 3rd, 2015

The Communications Alliance has published a draft Code for a copyright notice scheme in Australia.

The draft Code will apply to residential, fixed line accounts only. It appears to be intended to apply to all ISPs of (an as yet to be determined) minimum size. The scheme does not involve ISPs terminating, suspending or throttling accounts, but leads up to the rights holders potentially making applications for preliminary discovery to identify egregious account holders. Participation in the scheme, however, does not preclude a rights holder from taking infringement proceedings at any stage.

The draft Code envisages 3 stages of notice:

  1. an Education Notice;
  2. a Warning Notice; and
  3. a Final Notice.

A rights holder who alleges an infringement would send a notice in the agreed form to the relevant ISP which would then issue a notice at the appropriate level to the account holder. The ISP must not at any stage disclose any personal information “including the identity or any contact details of an Account Holder at any stage of the copyright notice scheme, unless there is a court order or written permission from the Account Holder”.

Each type of notice will include, amongst other things, details about the alleged infringement and information where legitimate content can be obtained.

A Final Notice would be issued only within the 12 months from issue of the most recent Education Notice. If more than 12 months has passed, the process resets to the Education Notice.

If a Final Notice is sent, it will include a warning that the Account Holder may be subject to court proceedings including an application for preliminary discovery. An Account Holder who receives a Final Notice may challenge it before an Adjudication Panel on payment of a $25 fee. Until the challenge is resolved, the Account Holder must not be included in “the Final Notice List”. The costs of the Adjudication Panel are otherwise to be borne by the rights holders.

Rights holders can seek access to each ISP’s Final Notice List – which must be provided in a way that does not include any personal identification material and, having received it, the rights holder may apply to “a federal court or tribunal” for preliminary discovery and the ISP must abide by the outcome.

It is envisaged that the Code will operate for 18 months and then be subject to an evaluation.

The draft has been prepared through consultations involving:

  • on the ISPs side: Telstra, Optus, iiNet, IP Star, M2, Verizon and Vodafone Hutchison; and
  • on the rights holders side: APRA AMCOS, ARIA, Australia Screen Association, Copyright Agency, Foxtel, Free TV Australia, Music Rights Australia, News Corporation Australia, Village Roadshow Limited and World Media.

The implementation of the scheme will be overseen by a Copyright Information Panel, consisting of representatives of the ISPs, rights holders and “the Consumer Organisation”. The Copyright Information Panel will also be responsible for appointing the Adjudication Panel.

In addition to the size of ISPs who must participate, the press release notes that the parties are still to agree on the funding arrangements – i.e., who will bear the costs of the notices and administration – and how many notices an ISP may have to handle in any given month.

The publication of the draft reflects the ultimatum from the Attorney-General back in December.

The draft is now open for public comment until 23 March 2015. The intention is that, once finalised, the draft will be submitted to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for registration as an Industry Code under s 112 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

Draft Code here (pdf).

Press release here.

Clip to Evernote

ACCC loses antitrust case against Pfizer

February 27th, 2015

Flick J has ruled that Pfizer did not breach antitrust rules by trying to maintain sales of Lipitor after it came off patent.

Pfizer’s patent on atorvastatin (Lipitor) was due to expire on 18 May 2012.[1] Its analysis showed it was facing a revenue cliff: from $771 million a year in 2011 to $70 million a years by 2015. Pfizer came up with a 3-part plan:

  1. in the 18 months prior to expiry, it stopped supplying Lipitor through wholesalers and started supplying pharmacies directly (thereby earning the wholesale margin for itself);
  2. it offered a 5% discount to those pharmacies it supplied + a 5% “rebate” credited to an accrual fund. The “rebate” was repayable to the pharmacy if it committed to buy from Pfizer a specified proportion of its anticipated generic atorvastatin needs after the patent expired – the amount of “rebate” repaid would vary according to the proportion of generic needs committed to and the time frame for the commitment. For example, the pharmacy would receive 100% if it committed to taking 75% of its anticipated needs for 12 months. but only 50% if it committed to taking 75% for only 6 months.
  3. Pfizer also made a bundled offer – it could offer to supply both Lipitor and its generic product “atorvastatin Pfizer”.

The ACCC brought action alleging by implementing this plan, Pfizer had contravened:

  • section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act (CCA), which prohibits a corporation with a substantiall degree of power in a market from taking advantage of that power for proscribed anti-competitive purposes; and
  • section47 of the CCA which prohibits exclusive dealing that has the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition in a market.

Flick J has dismissed the ACCC’s action.

Relevant market

His Honour found that the relevant market was the market for the supply to community pharmacies in Australia of atorvastatin as the ACCC contended. Pfizer argued the market was the market for the wholesale supply of pharmaceutical products and over the counter products to community pharmacies.

Substantial degree of power in the market

His Honour also found that Pfizer had a substantial degree of power in that market until late 2011 and had taken advantage of that power by implementing its scheme. Pfizer did not have a substantial degree of power in the market from January 2012 on wards.

Before January 2012, Pfizer was the only supplier of atorvastatin and the constraints on the price it could charge imposed by the PBS was “not sufficient to render its market power anything other than “substantial”.” Flick J recognised that there was no precise date which could be identified as the point where Pfizer’s market power ceased to be substantial. By late 2011, however, that power was no longer “enduring” as the expiry date of the patent loomed closer. By February 2012, Ranbaxy was able to enter the market offering its generic atorvastatin for sale[2] and the other intending generic suppliers had registered their products on the Therapeutic Goods Register and were starting sales discussions with potential customers.

Flick J found Pfizer took advantage of its power to impose the direct sales to pharmacies model because the pharmacies were opposed to it, but Pfizer was able to impose it on them as the only possible source of atorvastatin. Similarly, the rebate scheme took advantage of that power because it created an expection of payments in the future on terms that were unclear and yet to be decided. Flick J found that the amount of money accumulated within the rebate scheme by the time the patent expired was very substantial – $35 million – a powerful incentive to buy product from Pfizer. One might wonder, however, why the position would have been any different if the terms on which the rebate could be claimed had been clear.

No anti-competitive purpose

Even in the period before January 2012 when it had a substantial degree of power in the market, however, there was no contravention of 2 46 because it did not take advantage of its market power for a proscribed anti-competitive purpose.

Pfizer also did not contravene s 47 because in implementing the scheme it did not have the purpose of substantially lessening competition.

Rather than having a purpose of deterring competition by the generics, Flick J accepted that Pfizer was motivated by rationale business objectives. For example, selling directly to pharmacies rather than through wholesalers:

But my question, Mr Latham, was directed to Lipitor and generic atorvastatin, not some dream of establishing a generics business? — But once again you’re asking me to make a decision on – on one product, when I have seven products, over $1 billion, coming off patent. And it’s not just Pfizer Australia. It’s around the world. And to try to get the best business organisation that’s going to deliver continuing operations through those generic products, plus, they have these additional benefits of being closer to pharmacy. Going through the licensee doesn’t tick that important box.

The requirement to take 75% of the pharmacies needs to qualify for the “rebate” also did not have an anti-competitive purpose. Rather, Flick J found that the requirement had been reduced from 100% to 75% – sacrificing $30 million in potential revenue – to enable the pharmacy to establish a second source of supply.

s 51(3)

Section 51(3) exempts from s 47 conditions in, amongst other things, licences of patent to the extent they relate to the invention to which the patent relates or articles made according to the invention.

Although its operation did not fall to be determined because there was no contravention of s 47, Flick J would have found it did not apply in this case. His Honour considered that the sale of atorvastatin to the pharmacies would not involve any licence. More importantly, his Honour would have held that the condition was collateral to the patent and so outside the scope of the exemption.

What actually happened

In the event, Pfizer went from selling 100% of the prescribed atorvastatin (as Lipitor) in March 2012, to 32% of prescription in April and settling around 22 – 23% by June 2012. While Pfizer antiticpated marketing advantages in being the only supplier likely to supply generic atorvastatin in pills the same shape, size and colour as Lipitor, the evidence showed it held 100% of the generic market until September 2012, after which its share fell away to 16 – 17% by March/April 2013.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 113


  1. PBS figures for the year to June 2012 showed Lipitor was the highest cost to the scheme ($593 million) followed by rosuvastatin ($359 million) and ranibizumab ($308 million).  ?
  2. Pfizer and Ranbaxy had settled other litigation on terms which enabled Ranbaxy to enter the market before the patent expired.  ?

Clip to Evernote

IP Australia consults on red tape streamlining and costing

February 25th, 2015

IP Australia has issued to discussion papers:

  • Proposals to streamline IP processes and support small business; and
  • Proposals to streamline IP processes and support small business – Regulatory costs,

apparently following Parliamentary Secretary Karen Andrews’ announcement.

According to IP Australia’s website, the “streamlining” paper:

The … Consultation Paper outlines 22 proposals to align and simplify our IP processes, support small business and make some technical fixes relating to the regulation of IP attorneys.

The first 10 proposals apply across the board (as it were) to patents, trade marks, designs and PBR and relate to matters such as aligning renewals re-examination/revocation, extensions of time, writing and filing requirements.

There are 3 further proposals affecting patents: third party requests for examination, colour drawings and extensions of term – notices to the department of health.

The 14th proposal relates to the acceptance timeframe for trade mark applications.

15 and 16 affect the registration of designs and multiple copies of representations.

There are 6 proposals “supporting small business” including unjustified threats of infringement and trade marks and shelf companies.

And 2 “technical fixes” relating to publishing the personal information of “IP attorneys” and prosecuting “IP attorney” offences.

There are some 84 pages in the paper. So this post is not going to do the paper anything approximating “justice”.

One proposal is to reduce the acceptance period for trade marks from 15 months to 6 months. There are also substantial changes proposed for the regimes relating to extensions of time:

 – Align PBR extensions with those for patents and for a wider range of actions

 – Specify the grounds for the ‘special circumstances’ extension in the trade marks legislation and align circumstances beyond control across the rights

 – Allow extensions of time for renewal grace periods but not renewal dates, for all IP rights

– Make the ‘despite due care’ extension available for all IP rights and have no limit on the period of the extension

– For all rights, limit the ‘error or omission by applicant/owner’ extension to 12 months

 – Streamlined process for short extensions of time

– Simplify and align fees

– Make all extensions of time non-discretionary.

Certificates: you know, things like Certificates of Registration:

The IP legislation would be amended so that certificates would not be required to be issued for examination, registration and grant. Also, the patents and trade marks Acts would be amended to no longer provide that a certificate signed by the Commissioner or Registrar is prima facie evidence of a matter. Instead, the Acts would provide that any document approved by the Commissioner or Registrar (or similar wording) would constitute prima facie evidence of a matter. This would enable IP Australia to continue to provide documents for such purposes, without requiring them to be signed certificates. Signed copies or extracts of the Registers would continue to be admissible in proceedings as if they were the original Register, and therefore prima facie evidence of the particulars on them.

Unjustified threats: this would see removal of the defence under s 129(5) of the Trade Marks Act of bringing infringement proceedings reasonably timely (which is not currently a defence for patent or designs threats), providing the remedy for PBR and introducing a power to award additional damages in respect of blatant and unjustified threats against another party.

Trade marks and shelf companies: this proposal would see amendment of s 27 so that it would not be necessary to incorporate the company that is intended to use the trade mark, but purchase of a shelf company would suffice.

The renewals proposal would see a grace period of 6 months introduced for renewing PBR and provision that all IPR could be infringed during the grace period if subsequently renewed.

In coming up with those proposals, IP Australia has used a costing framework and developed detailed costings which are set out in the “costings” paper. We are being invited to comment on those too.

If you are feeling excited, you should get your submissions in to IP Australia by 7 April 2015.

Proposals to streamline IP processes and support small business (pdf)

Proposals to streamline IP processes and support small business – Regulatory costs (pdf)

Clip to Evernote

High Court to review patenting of isolated genes in Australia

February 16th, 2015

According to a media release by Maurice Blackburn,[1] the High Court has granted Ms D’Arcy special leave to appeal the decision that Myriad’s BRCA patent for isolated genes is patentable subject matter, as a manner of manufacture, in Australia.

At first instance, Nicholas J upheld the patentable subject matter of the patent. His Honour’s decision was affirmed by a Full Bench of the Federal Court.

The transcript of the special leave application is not yet up.

Lid dips: Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick and Dr Summerfield.

D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc.


  1. The law firm representing Ms D’Arcy the appellant. The High Court’s summary (pdf) of Results of Special Leave applications confirms the grant.  ?

Clip to Evernote

Regency still loses its MPEG appeal

December 24th, 2014

Although it rejected the primary judge’s interpretation of s145 of the Patents Act 1990, the Full Court has nonetheless dismissed Regency’s appeal seeking to terminate its licence of MPEG patents.

In 2009, Regency took a licence of a bundle of patents from the MPEG patent pool so that it could make, amongst other things, DVD and Blu-Ray players. All the patents were necessary to make MPEG–2 compliant equipment, but they related to different inventions. By July 2012, some of the patents, but not all, had expired. Regency sought to terminate the licence early, relying on s145.

Section 145 provides:

(1) A contract relating to the lease of, or a licence to exploit, a patented invention may be terminated by either party, on giving 3 months’ notice in writing to the other party, at any time after the patent, or all the patents, by which the invention was protected at the time the contract was made, have ceased to be in force.

(2) Subsection (1) applies despite anything to the contrary in that contract or in any other contract.

The Full Court agreed with Regency that the trial judge`s interpretation of,s145 was wrong but, even so, the right to terminate the licence under s145 did not accrue until all the patents licensed at the time the licence was granted had expired. As there were patents still on foot, therefore, Regency did not have the right under s145 to terminate.

The Full Court considered that the reference to “a patented invention”, an expression not defined in the Patents Act was simply a reference to an invention that was patented, rather than something which was patentable subject matter.

Further, s23(b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 meant that the reference to the singular – a patented invention – could be read as including the plural. While recognising that s145 was intended to protect licensees from being unfairly required to pay licence fees after the patents had expired, Bennett and Pagone JJ pointed out that, as the licensor could also invoke s145, a licensee could be exposed to even greater unfairness if the licence could be terminated after the expiry of one or only some patents:

30 … if MPEG were entitled to terminate the licence when one of the patents or all of the patents for one of the inventions had expired, Regency would be in the position that, having implemented the Standard, it would be required to cease exploitation of the outstanding patents or negotiate a fresh licence.

31 The primary judge recognised the lack of commercial reality and potential unfairness in such circumstances and so do we. It would lead to the absurd result that parties wishing to negotiate for a patent pool would necessarily have to enter into multiple contracts or face the uncertainties and possible damage caused upon the expiry of a single patent of that patent pool. This would be of particular difficulty for a licensee which had “tooled up”, or entered into financial obligations on the faith of the right to exploit the necessary patent, and could also affect third party end users of a product.

Earlier at [25], Bennett and Pagone JJ had emphasised the importance of certainty provided by contracts:

Regency points to commercial and policy reasons why a licensee should not continue to pay royalties where an invention the subject of the licence is no longer the subject of a subsisting patent. However, this possible disadvantage to a licensee can be taken into account during negotiations for a contract. Regency negotiated a licence fee that included patents now expired but must be taken to have been aware of the expiry of patents during the term of the Contract when it negotiated that fee. This is supported by the fact that the October 2009 amendment to the Contract provided for royalty rates, those rates decreasing over specified periods of time in recognition of the ever approaching end to each of the patents (as observed by the primary judge at [11]).

While this case did not explicitly turn on questions of misuse of market power, that analysis does not bode well for the ACCC`s pending antitrust action against Pfizer.

Nicholas J delivered a concurring judgment.

Regency Media Pty Ltd v MPEG LA, L.L.C [2014] FCAFC 183

Clip to Evernote

Online copyright infringement reforms announced

December 10th, 2014

The Attorney-General and the Minister for Communications have issued a joint media release announcing the Government’s response to July’s Issues Paper:

  1. First step: they have written to “industry leaders” and told them to come up with an agreed industry code for a “graduated response” regime[1] to be registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) under Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997;
  2. Second step: if the “industry leaders” cannot come up with an agreement within 120 days [2]:

    the Government will impose binding arrangements either by an industry code prescribed by the Attorney-General under the Copyright Act 1968 or an industry standard prescribed by the ACMA, at the direction of the Minister for Communications under the Telecommunications Act.

  3. Third step: the Government will also amend the Copyright Act to enable rights holders to get injunctions ordering ISPs to block access to websites outside Australia that provide access to infringing content.

Well, at least, Option 1 in the Issues Paper seems to have died a deserved death.[3] The media release does not mention, however, whether or not the Government will extend the “safe harbour” provisions to “service providers” and not just “carriage service providers”.

The letter the Government sent to “industry leaders” did provide some general direction about the contents of the anticipated industry code:

  • that ISPs take reasonable steps (including the development of an education and warning notice scheme) to deter online copyright infringement on their network, when they are made aware of infringing subscribers, in a manner that is proportionate to the infringement
  • informing consumers of the implications of copyright infringement and legitimate alternatives that provide affordable and timely content
  • providing appropriate safeguards for consumers
  • fairly apportioning costs as between ISPs and rights holders
  • ensuring smaller ISPs are not unfairly or disproportionately affected, and
  • include a process for facilitated discovery to assist rights holders in taking direct copyright infringement action against a subscriber after an agreed number of notices

and included the exhortation:

Any code must be sustainable and technology neutral. It should be educative and attempt to address the reasons that people are accessing unauthorised content. Consumer interests must be given genuine consideration in your negotiations.

There is no more detail on what sanctions, if any, would apply.[4]

The media release also includes a warning, of sorts, to the right holders:

The issue of affordability and accessibility of legitimate content is a key factor in reducing online copyright infringement. The Government welcomes recent action by content owners and expects industry to continue to respond to this demand from consumers in the digital market.

It will be interesting to see if the “industry leaders” can come up with an agreed code, given they have failed to reach agreement for over a decade now. Even if the Government is forced to impose a code, it may also be interesting see which ISPs join in the scheme. If there is an industry code and significant ISPs join in, would that be a basis for reconsidering the High Court’s ruling of non-authorisation in the iiNet case which was predicated, at least in part, on the ability of subscribers to jump ship from iiNet to another ISP if sanctions were imposed.

Lid dip: David Andrews.


  1. That is a system whereby subscribers get some number of notices that their account is (allegedly) being used to infringe copyright and warning them to stop or …. All the media release says at this stage:  ?

    The code will include a process to notify consumers when a copyright breach has occurred and provide information on how they can gain access to legitimate content.

  2. According to the letter the Government sent to “industry leaders”, the industry code must be agreed by 8 April 2015. (Update: you can now read the letter via this link (scroll down).At the moment, I don’t seem to be able to find a copy of the letter, which was attached to the media release, online.)  ?
  3. The media release says that the effectiveness of these measures will be reviewed in 18 months as in “a world of rapid changes in technology and human behaviour, there is no single measure that can eliminate online copyright infringement.”.  ?
  4. Yesterday’s press reports suggested that “harsh measures” like internet throttling would not be available.  ?

Clip to Evernote