Australia

A problem of expert evidence

1 Comment / Patents / / / , , , , , , ,

VIP Plastics has successfully sued BMW Plastics for infringing its patent for a “Variable-length Dip Tube for a Fluid Transfer Container”. The most interesting point to emerge is why the expert evidence on one side prevailed and, on the other, failed – even so far as being rejected as inadmissible.

How the battle was won

As is typically the case, much of the battle turned on whether applicant’s expert evidence or the respondent’s was accepted. Kenny J denied that the respondent’s expert’s evidence was not admissible and, even if it were, would have preferred the applicant’s witnesses. The applicant’s witnesses were the named inventor and his assistant.

In construing a patent (whether for deciding its validity or if it has been infringed), it has to be read through the eyes of the (non-inventive) person skilled in the art.

Who is the person skilled in the art

Kenny J found at [20] that the relevant field or art in this case was:

the manufacture and use of dip tubes, particularly in chemical transfer drums or like containers used in the agricultural and veterinary fields.

The named inventor gave evidence about the attributes of the person skilled in this art at [21]:

these attributes included a good working understanding of the processing of plastics and the manufacture of plastic products (involving, amongst other things, an understanding of varying grades and types of plastics and manufacturing processes such as extrusion and blow, injection and vacuum moulding, as well as the economies of such processes). According to Mr Mandile, it was also necessary to have some experience and understanding of the manufacture of large plastic fluid containers (of a size more than 20 litres in volume) incorporating some sort of extraction system. Further, it was necessary to have an understanding (of the kind that a chemical engineer would have) of the environmental stress effects on plastics and the performance characteristics of varying grades of polymers under stress and when interacting with the types of chemicals solutions used in agriculture and likely to be stored in the drums. Finally, it was necessary to have some familiarity with the various products and solutions that had been tried in the industry. In Mr Mandile’s opinion, knowledge of this kind was generally confined to people working in the plastics industry, who had experience in the design and processing of plastic containers of larger sizes and the manufacture of plastic packaging and transfer of chemical fluid to and from such packaging. In cross-examination, Mr Mandile stated that he regarded himself as a person skilled in working in the field of dip tubes for agricultural and horticultural purposes.

Kenny J noted that Aickin J had accepted that evidence about the experiments undertaken by an inventor leading up to the invention could be relevant even if “not always likely to be helpful”. As a result, Kenny J considered at [22] that the inventor could also give evidence about the characteristics of a the person skilled in the relevant art, albeit such evidence needed to be assessed carefully. On the other hand, the respondent contended that “just about any engineer with a basic knowledge of manufacturing techniques and a basic knowledge of mechanics of devices could be classified as a skilled addressee”. Kenny J rejected this on the evidence.

Accordingly, her Honour accepted at [23] that:

the skilled addressee is a person with practical knowledge of and experience in the manufacture of plastic products, particularly large fluid containers incorporating some kind of extraction system. That is, such a person would have practical knowledge and experience in the manufacture of plastic packaging for the storage of fluid and the transfer of such fluid from the packaging. Such a person would also have an understanding of the environmental stress effects on plastics.

Why the professor was not a psa

There were a number of problems why Kenny J considered that the evidence of the professor advanced by the respondent was not relevant (and so not admissible). The chief reason was that he had no relevant or special expertise and was unable to give evidence about what those in the art would know or do.

Section 76 of the Evidence Act generally rules opinion evidence inadmissible. One important exception is provided by s 79 for “expert” opinion (about a relevant issue). The opinion is “expert” for this exception where it is evidence from a person if the person “has specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience” and the opinion “is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge” (emphasis supplied).

In this case (and will not necessarily be true in every case), the professor had worked in the wool industry “for 10 years in the 1980s” and, since then, he had “mainly been an academic, teaching in the area and consulting in minor ways for engineering” when the priority date for the patent was in 2000. Then at [60]:

Of course, in a case such as this, a court may receive expert evidence from persons other than skilled addressees if it is otherwise relevant. There was, however, a serious difficulty with [the professor’s] evidence in another respect: it was not just that he was not a skilled addressee but that he had no history of working in the fields of dip tubes or plastics, or some related field. Without this specialised knowledge, based on training, study or experience, [the professor] was not in a position to give relevant evidence to the court bearing on the meaning of the VIP Patent or a prior publication, the issue of novelty and the issue of obviousness:

Then, so far as the professor gave evidence about the innovation process based on his specialised knowledge, it was not knowledge relevant to the art in question.

There were other problems too: opinions were expressed about questions of mixed fact and law – e.g. it was obvious – based on misunderstanding of key legal concepts; there was also a problem of hindsight.

The use of relative terms

The infringer’s attack on the patent as lacking clarity because it used relative terms such as “inhibits bending” and “just below the end” were dismissed. Kenny J accepted that they were not precise, but found they applied Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 56 at 95 to find they provided a workable standard.

VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd v B.M.W. Plastics Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 660

An earlier round in the dispute where Kenny J refused to refer the matter to the Commissioner by a direction under s 97(3) of the Patents Act.

A problem of expert evidence Read More »

iTunes Match and making Prof. Lessig’s case

1 Comment / Copyright / / / , , , , , , , ,

Recap: Prof. Lessig’s argument.

You will remember that Michael Speck from Music Industry Piracy Investigations was outraged by Apple’s pending iTunes Match service and, in particular, the part where the service would in your iCloud account copies of music on your hard drive which had not been bought through iTunes.

At the time, it wasn’t clear (at least to me) whether Apple was going all gung-ho and just offering this unilaterally or had the agreement of the record companies to this.

Of course, if the record companies had agreed to this, it would be rather hard for them, or their representative, to complain about the pirate’s charter.

Jonathon Bailey, at Plagiarism Today, reports here that Apple is in fact offering the service in the USA with the agreement of the record companies. He also goes on to discuss indications that this is all part of a clever new strategy by the record companies to combat piracy – one of the indications he identifies includes recent reports that the music industry in Australia is not pursuing a 3 strikes policy (at least as strongly) as the movie industry.

Swerving to another aspect: the iTunes Match service Steve Jobs announced was for the USA only. Media reports suggest it will take up to 12 months for the service to be extended to the UK and speculate other countries will have similar delays.

Copyright is, of course, a territorial right and there are often different owners and licensees for different territories (i.e., countries). Thus, just because you have consent from the (or a) copyright owner in one country does not give you rights to do the same thing with the corresponding copyright in another country. No doubt, therefore, a large part of any delay will be attributable to the need to negotiate separate arrangements with the owners of copyright in different territories.

So the delay reported in the media should come as no surprise. That shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise to those in Australia who monitored, for example, how long it took for the iBookstore to get any “in copyright” content. Perhaps, if Mr Speck’s view is representative of the views of the copyright owners in Australia, the wait would be even longer – what an economist might describe as “infinitely long”.

All of which goes to highlight, as representatives around the world assemble in Geneva to debate extending copyright and introducing limitations for visually impaired readers, why are we still dealing in the 21st century with territorial rights for electronic rights which can be accessed virtually instantaneously from virtually anywhere in the world?

Oh, perhaps it’s not just an electronic “problem”. This product is advertised for sale in the USA for US$399. You can buy it here for AUD$699 or (depending on exchange rate fluctuations) approximately US$736. (By the way, I am certainly not recommending that you do buy the product from either source, I have no experience with it.) Almost makes you wonder where’s Prof. Fels?

iTunes Match and making Prof. Lessig’s case Read More »

Helping make Prof. Lessig’s case for him

Leave a Comment / Copyright, Internet / / / , , , , , , ,

So, Steve Jobs introduced iCloud to the world yesterday.

Michael Speck from Music Industry Piracy Investigations (the people who bring down pirates like Kazaa for the record industry) declared:

Apple was “no better than the old p2p pirates”.

Now, at one level, Apple is not doing that much that hasn’t already been done before: Apple own webpage compares its service to those already on offer from Amazon and Google. Here’s another 17 Apps Mr Jobs made redundant.

Presumably, what you “buy” from Apple through the iTunes store is covered by a licence. The thing that Mr Speck is concerned about is the iTunes Match service: if you let Apple scan your hard drive it will store on the iCloud server for you copies of – according to Mr Speck – all the music you have there; you paid music and music you, er, ripped yourself including pirated music files.  Tidbits’ summary of iTunes Match:

iTunes Match — What about the music you purchased elsewhere or ripped from CD yourself? For a $24.99 yearly fee, iTunes Match makes those songs available, too. iTunes uploads a list of songs in your library (much as it does now for the iTunes Genius results) and matches them (probably using music fingerprinting) against Apple’s collection of 18 million tracks. If you choose to download a track to a device where it doesn’t appear, Apple provides a version at iTunes Plus quality (256 Kbps and free of DRM), even if your original copy was ripped at a lower quality.

Hmm, so if an Australian user chooses the music files to be “matched”, that puts Apple in the territory of iiNet (unless of course Apple’s servers are “in” Australia too).

But wait you say, isn’t there a fair dealing defence? See if you can fit what is being proposed into this.

From what some of the other commentators say, however, it looks like Apple may have cut a deal with the record companies so that some percentage of the annual iTunes Match fee goes to the record companies – see the comments of Kim Weatherall and Colin Jacobs here.

If that were part of the deal with the record companies, then problem solved, but Mr Speck’s interpretation is that it just a unilateral position taken by Apple without the consent of the copyright owners.

Then, for those of us in Australia, there is another problem: when it launches, iTunes Match will be available only in the USA. It will become available in other parts of the world only when licences are negotiated with the copyright owners. Wonder how long it will take before (a) Apple gets around to negotiating with copyright owners for Australia and (b) the chances the copyright owners for Australia will agree to any of this? Remember how long it took for any copyright material to show up in the iBookstore?

On the topic of territorial copyright:

When Zengobi announced Curio Core it was priced (to US customers) at US$39.99. It’s currently available in the Apple Australia Mac App store for AU$47.99, even though the Australian $ currently buys (approx) US$1.06 (which translates into just under AU$38. You can have similar fun with lots of other items in the App stores. Choice magazine provides even more egregious examples for a host of brands.

What Prof Lessig’s case is.

Helping make Prof. Lessig’s case for him Read More »

Inducing patent infringement in the USA

Leave a Comment / Copyright, Patents / / / , , , , , ,

The US Supreme Court has ruled that liability for inducing infringement of a patent under US law requires knowledge of the patent or something called ‘wilful blindness’ to the patent’s existence.

Patently-O summarises and includes a link to download Global-Tech Appliances, inc. v. SEB S.A.

Now, I do know that their law is different to our law.

For a start, under our law infringement can lie in ‘authorising’ the infringer, not (just) inducing the infringement or that idea of contributory infringement – the patentee’s exclusive rights under s 13 include the right to authorise someone to exploit the patent as well as to exploit the patent.

In Ramset, the Full Court traced the old case law: you couldn’t be liable for ‘merely facilitating’ someone else to infringe by supplying materials to them, even if you knew they were going to use them to infringe. If your involvement was sufficient to amount to a common design, or procuring their infringement, however, which generally seemed to presuppose some knowledge of the patent – you could be liable.

Ramset itself knew of the patent’s existence in 1987, several years before it issued the brochure with instructions on how to assemble its product and use it in a way that infringed.

But, on general principles, liability for authorisation requires two elements: (1) that someone has done something which infringes the patent (or threatens to do so in a quia timet case) and (2) the alleged authoriser has done something, or may be supplied something, to entice (to use yet another synonym), induce, persuade or encourage the first person to do that infringing conduct.

The first person, the primary infringer, can be liable even if they do not know that there is a patent – they might escape liability for damages or an account in view of their innocence: see s 123. Why shouldn’t that also apply to the alleged authoriser. Indeed, s 123 would seem equally applicable to the alleged authoriser. And that indeed is the position that Bennett J has reached in Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH v MDS Diagnostics Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 108, for example.

The copyright cases on authorisation go so far as to hold that, at least in some circumstances, a person who stands by with knowledge that infringing conduct is occurring, or may be is likely to occur, will be liable as an authoriser where they have power to do something about it. Perhaps, we’ll get a better understanding of what is the quality of that power to do something if the High Court grants special leave to Roadshow in the iiNet case.

Inducing patent infringement in the USA Read More »

A lamp lens too far

1 Comment / Designs / / / , , , , , , , , ,

The fifth decision under the “new” Designs Act 2004 illustrates the operation of that old principle: in a crowded field, small differences may be enough to confer validity, but equally small differences in the accused products will be sufficient to avoid liability.
You will recall that LED Technologies successfully sued Elecspess (and others) for infringing LED’s registered designs for a dual lens lamp, ARD 302359, and a triple lens lamp, 302360 (links to those decisions via here). Well, LED fell out with its Chinese manufacturer, Valens, and found itself a new supplier. Valens, however, didn’t take things lying down and started supplying another of LED’s competitors, Baxter.
As in the earlier case, Baxter challenged the validity of the earlier design; this time arguing that the Statement of Newness and Distinctiveness was unclear and also relying on some different prior art.
The first objection failed.  The perspective view for the two-lens design looks like this:

 

ARD 302359

The Statement of Newness etc. etc. read:

Separate clip in lenses. Base to take a variety of 2, 3 or 4 combination of lenses for stop, tail, indicator, reverse LED lenses, no visible screws.

At [85], Finkelstein J accepted that the Statement of Newness etc. etc. could have been “better expressed”, but it sufficiently clear and succinct:
…. In my view the statement indicates clearly to the relevantly informed addressee (and probably to anyone familiar with the English language) that the base could be manufactured to take a number of lenses. Reference to “separate clip in lenses”, when read with the phrase “no visible screws”, indicates that the lenses clips in and are not held in place by screws. There is nothing relevantly uncertain contained in the statement. 

There were important visual differences between LED’s designs and the closest prior art. For example, at [104]:
the base of the Rubbolite lamps appeared to provide individual frames for each lens, which is not a feature of the registered designs. … the corners of the Rubbolite lens appeared sharper or squarer than the registered designs but said the difference was minor. … there was a noticeable ledge or lip around the lens (which he referred to as the “lens housing”) which was not shown on the registered designs. The ledge or lip around the lens on the Rubbolite lamps tapered inwards which made it substantially different in appearance when looked at from the side. 

Hence, the registered designs were valid.
Unfortunately (for LED), before Valens started supplying Baxter, it had made some changes to the product. As a result, the products supplied to Baxter were not substantially similar in overall impression to the registered designs. Finkelstein J accepted [105] that there were similarities between the products imported by Baxter and the registered design.  Many of them, however, “were common in the prior art”. Moreover:
[106] There are, to my mind, several important features that lead me to the conclusion that the Baxters lamps are not substantially similar in overall impression to the registered designs. The key features are the prominent cut out pattern on the underside of the designs, which is to be contrasted with the flat closed backs of the Baxters lamps, and the square lenses of the designs having a wide landing between them while the Baxters lights have no landing. Of less significance are the long sides of the frames of the registered designs which have raised edges resulting in a counter-sunk appearance, which is not present on the Baxters lamps. As well, the short sides of the frames of the registered designs are raised at their outer portions and dip down in the central portion, which is not a feature of Baxters’ design. 

[107] Moreover, in my view, it is these features that distinguish the registered designs from the prior art such as to admit of the conclusion that the registered designs are new and distinctive. 

Inducing breach of contract

An interesting twist to this case, was that LED also tried to “get” Baxter for inducing the (ex-) Chinese supplier, Valens, to breach its contract with LED.

Essentially, LED argued it had agreed with Valens that Valens would not supply anyone else in Australia or New Zealand with products made using the moulds for the products supplied to LED. The evidence on this point was less than ideal, with the judge being rather critical of the witnesses. There was also a dispute between LED and Valens over who owned what. Ultimately, his Honour accepted that there was a deal that LED would be supplied exclusively for Australia and New Zealand so the supply of products to Baxter was in breach of the agreement. However, Baxter itself did not procure the breach: Baxter did not know Valens was re-using the moulds: to the contrary, it was paying Valens for new moulds.

It is rather hard to reconcile the story in Elecspess on how the designs came into existence and came to be manufactured with the evidence in this case. Of course, as the parties in the two cases are different, each must be decided on its own evidence. I guess, in terms of ownership of the registered designs, there is commonality in that LED’s principal, Mr Ottobre, was the author of the original conception. Matters get rather murky after that.  At [30], LED apparently started selling the lamps made by Valens in “early 2004”, but the priority date of the designs is 22 June 2004.

LED Technologies Pty Ltd v Roadvision Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 146

A lamp lens too far Read More »

capable of being confused with the trade mark

2 Comments / Trade marks / / / , , , , , ,

Jessup J has ruled that Idameneo’s use of:

Idameneo's trade mark

does not infringe Symbion’s registered trade mark for:

Symbion's trade mark

(As registered, the trade mark is not coloured; it was generally used in the colours depicted. See s 70(3).)

However, Idameneo’s use of its trade mark did breach its contractual obligations.


On the trade mark infringement front, you might have been thinking like me, “Who would have thought?” It turns out, however, that what enabled Idameneo to escape was the nature of the services: medical imaging services. Although the customer, you or I needing an x-ray, pays the bill and has the service practised on us, the relevant public were the doctors (and the odd dentist) who referred the patient to the service. This constituted a specialist market within Lord Diplock’s definition :

My Lords, where goods are of a kind which are not normally sold to the general public for consumption or domestic use but are sold in a specialised market consisting of persons engaged in a particular trade, evidence of persons accustomed to dealing in that market as to the likelihood of deception or confusion is essential. A judge, though he must use his common sense in assessing the credibility and probative value of that evidence, is not entitled to supplement any deficiency in evidence of this kind by giving effect to his own subjective view as to whether or not he himself would be likely to be deceived or confused.

By law, the doctor (and presumably the dentist) could not make a referral without providing the patient with the name and address of the service provider: i.e., they had to know who was going to provide the service.

It is rather a messy deal how Symbion came to license its trade mark to the corporate group of which Idameneo was a member. Under the terms of the licence, however, the licensee agreed (for itself and the other members of the corporate group which included Idameneo) by cl. 5.5:

Use of Similar Marks

Except as permitted by this deed, the [respondent] must not, and must ensure that each Licensee does not, use:

(a)       any Trade Mark; or

(b)     any Mark similar to or capable of being confused with any of the Trade Marks or which contain the words SYMBION or FAULDING,

as a trade mark, business name, domain name or otherwise anywhere in the world.

(emphasis supplied)

Jessup J was not prepared to treat the obligation as being 2 separate obligations: not to use similar trade marks or ones capable of being confused …. Rather, his Honour considered that the notion of ‘similar’ had to take colour from its context.

On the other hand, his Honour rejected Idameneo’s argument that the contractual obligation was no different to the test provided by s 10 for deceptive similarity for trade mark infringement:

36. …. The respect in which the test stated by the contractual provision conspicuously differs from that under s 10 is that it is concerned with similarity which is capable of causing confusion, whereas the section is concerned with resemblance which is likely to deceive or to cause confusion.  Here I think that the applicant has the better of the argument.  It is as clear as may be that the parties to the licence agreement were conscious of the circumstance that many of the marks referred therein were registered under the Trade Marks Act; and it may be inferred that they had an active appreciation of the requirements of s 10.  I have no reason to doubt that their choice of different language by which to express the prohibition in cl 5.5(b) was a conscious one.  I consider that for the court to conflate, as it were, the terms of that prohibition into those of s 10 of the Trade Marks Act would be to neutralise that choice, and would go against the parties’ intentions.

In [37], Jessup J went on to note that the contractual prohibition was part of the consideration Symbion had extracted in return for granting the licence and must be thought to have some intended value.

Applying the usual rules of visual comparison and imperfect recollection, the lower threshold established by capable of confusion compared to likely to deceive or cause confusion meant the contract had been breached.

Jessup J did accept that the setting in which the competing marks were used should be taken into account in deciding whether or not cl. 5.5 was breached. The facts that Idameneo used its mark for medical diagnotic imaging while Symbion used its mark for the wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals, however, did not save Idameneo:

47 But I do not accept the respondent’s factual submission that the circumstances in which the respondent’s mark is used are so distinct from the business activities of the applicant as to leave no realistic scope for confusion by reason of similarity.  Both marks are used in the allied health sector: indeed, before 2008, the applicant’s mark was used by the respondent and its subsidiaries (then not part of the Primary group) in both the pharmaceutical and the imaging parts of that sector.  I think I am entitled to regard it as notorious that there is a degree of contact, at both the professional and the consumer levels, as between these parts, such as would make it quite unsurprising if the same people – to some extent at least – had occasion to encounter both the respondent’s mark and the applicant’s mark from time to time.  And there is some evidence that the respondent’s mark is used in settings, such as the premises of hospitals, where those who have regular business dealings with the applicant – pharmacists and the staff of hospital pharmacy departments, for example – might be expected to be found. …. (emphasis supplied)

Idameneo argued that cl. 5.5 should be read down so as not to apply to its use of its trade mark because it had been using its trade mark before Symbion’s trade mark had been developed and it was in use when the licence was negotiated. Thus, it argued it was unreasonable to read cl. 5.5 as applying to its continued use of the trade mark. Jessup J rejected this argument, noting the strictness of the test for implying terms into a comprehensive, professionally drafted written agreement. Moreover, Idameneo’s business appears to have been something of a sideline or relatively remote activity within the corporate group as a whole. Jessup J pointed out at [42]:

there is no evidence that the applicant … knew of the existence of the respondent’s mark in the period August-October 2008.

Thus, the conditions for implication of a term could not be made out.

Symbion Pharmacy Services Pty Ltd v Idameneo (No 789) Limited [2011] FCA 389

capable of being confused with the trade mark Read More »

Framing the Convergence Review

1 Comment / Copyright, Internet, Technology / / / , , , , , , , ,

On 28 April, the Government’s Convergence Review (noted here) issued a Framing Paper.

According to p. 4 of this curious document:

This initial consultation paper seeks to identify the principles that should guide media and communications regulation in Australia, and provide stakeholders with the opportunity to raise the key issues arising from the principles. Its intent is to invite big-picture thinking about the Australian media and communications environment in its global context and how it may need to be shaped in order to achieve principles that serve the public interest. The committee will use these principles as a starting point to advise government of its preferred alternative policy framework

Accordingly (from p. 11):

the committee considers it appropriate to develop and consult with stakeholders on a set of principles to guide the committee’s consideration of specific issues. These principles have two main aims: to provide a consistent and transparent basis on which to consider specific issues and to ultimately form the basis of a set of policy objectives suitable for a converging media environment.

So your comments on the Framing Paper are sought by 10 June 2011. Then, the timetable is:

  • Emerging Issue paper : June 2011
  • Hearings: July 2011
  • detailed Discussion Papers: August 2011
  • Final Report: March 2012.

For the most part, the Framing Paper appears to relate to the regulatory regimes for broadcasting and telecommunications.

When announcing his intention to refer aspects of copyright law to the ALRC, the Attorney-General appeared to indicate that the reference (if any) will be subject to what happens in this Convergence Review. It is not so easy to identify from the Framework Paper, however, what areas might be cut across by the ALRC reviewing copyright law.

The Framework Paper does refer in several papers to “legitimate content services”. May be, it is to be found in “principle 6” which is (proposed to be):

Principle 6: Australians should have access to the broadest range of content across platforms and services as possible

This principle is taken from paragraph 5(e)(ii) of the Terms of Reference and is consistent with the objects in the BSA12, and s.3(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act to ‘Promote the long-term interests of end-users of carriage services or of services provided by means of carriage services.’ The committee considers that a guiding principle for the review is to maximise the range of legitimate content services available to Australians. A consideration is that regulation should be flexible and adaptable to changing market and technological circumstances, and constructed with a view to enhancing audiences and consumer choice.

Principle 7 appears to be directed more to the question of ‘net neutrality.

Convergence Review Framing Paper (pdf)

The Convergence Review’s home page

Framing the Convergence Review Read More »

(Not) a case of PBR

1 Comment / PBR / / / , , , , , ,

Caithness applied for the grant of plant variety rights for the potato variety ‘Nadine’ on 21 May 1992.

That application was accepted by the Registrar on 28 May 1992.

On 10 November 1994, the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 came into force and repealed the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987.

On 16 August 1995, Caithness’ application for Nadine was granted and certificate 465 was issued.

Under the old Act (the PVRA), the term of a registration was 20 years from the date of acceptance; i.e. until 28 May 2012. The term of registration under the New Act, however, was 20 years from the date of grant; i.e. until 16 August 2015. Elders, Caithness’ exclusive agent for Australia, challenged the Registrar’s conclusion that the term applicable was that under the old Act.

If Nadine had actually been registered before the old Act was repealed, s 82 of the new Act meant it would have the longer term of protection (i.e., measured from the date of grant) conferred by the new Act as if it had been registered under the new Act.

Because Nadine had only been accepted when the new Act came into force, however, Lander J has ruled that it did not fall under s 82, but s 83.

Moreover, the drafting of s 83 led to the ‘unfairness’ that Nadine was only entitled to protection for the term applicable under the old Act; i.e. until 28 May 2012.

His Honour refused to apply the principle in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] UKHL 15 and interpret s 83 as if additional words could be read into it to remedy an obvious drafting error:

85 The additional words which should be read in at the end of s 83 are said to be “save that a successful applicant will be granted PBR pursuant to the provisions of the Act”.

86 Assuming this Court had the power to do what the applicant contends, the Court should decline to exercise the power for two reasons which follow from the reasons for the construction that I have suggested. First, it would mean that an applicant who could not comply with s 44 of the new Act would have to be deemed to have complied otherwise the application would have to be refused. That would require some further words to be notionally added. Secondly, the applicant would obtain rights, being PBR, that s 82 contemplates that an old Act applicant should not be entitled. The applicant would obtain the rights which are specifically excluded in s 82(3) and (4). That would be a very odd result. It would mean that an applicant who had been granted plant variety rights under the old Act would be deemed to be entitled to PBR without the rights in s 82(3) and (4), but an applicant who had made an application under the old Act but who had not been granted any rights would become entitled to PBR including the rights under s 82(3) and (4).

87 This is not a piece of legislation which can be redrawn by the Court. The unfortunate result which the drafting error discloses is a matter for Parliament.

    Elders Rural Services Australia Limited v Registrar of Plant Breeder’s Rights [2011] FCA 384

    Patentology’s take

    (Not) a case of PBR Read More »

    Civil Dispute Resolution [Bill] Act

    Leave a Comment / Enforcement / / / , , ,

    Just as the Victorian government has announced its intention to repeal the corresponding obligations for litigation in State courts, the Commonwealth Attorney General has announced that the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill has now been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

    The Bill originally lapsed on the dissolution of Parliament last year, but was reintroduced in September.

    A key feature of the legislation is the introduction of the new genuine steps statement. According to the General Outline in the EM:

    This Bill encourages the resolution of civil disputes outside of the courts and seeks to improve access to justice by focusing parties and their lawyers on the early resolution of disputes.

    This Bill seeks to ensure that, as far as possible, parties take ‘genuine steps’ to resolve a civil dispute before proceedings are commenced in the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court.  When commencing proceedings in a court, parties are required to file a statement saying what steps they have taken to resolve their dispute or, if they have not taken any steps, the reasons why.  The Bill gives examples of reasons why steps might not be taken, including urgency, or where the safety of a person or security of property is compromised.  The court can take into account the failure to take steps when exercising its existing case management directions and costs powers.

    The Bill does not require parties to take any particular specific step – the most appropriate steps to take depend on the circumstances of the particular dispute.  The Bill is deliberately flexible in allowing parties to tailor the genuine steps they take to the circumstances of the dispute.

    The substantive obligations (on litigants and practitioners) under the legislation come into force on the earlier of (a) the date set in a Proclamation or (b) 6 months after Royal Assent.

    Some notes on the bill that lapsed.

    The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report.

    The NADRAC report.

    Lid dip, Jane.

     

    Civil Dispute Resolution [Bill] Act Read More »

    Roadshow v iiNet

    1 Comment / Copyright / / / , , , , , , ,

    The film studios have announced they have sought special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s 2-1 decision dismissing their claim that iiNet infringed their copyright by ‘authorising’ its subscribers’ infringing activities.

    AFACT press release

    iiNet press release.

    Meanwhile, the iiA is still working on a workable solution for the future.

    Roadshow v iiNet Read More »