The Federal Circuit Court can grant Mareva injunctions

The Federal Circuit Court can issue mareva injunctions[1] under s 14 and s 15 of the Federal Circuit Court Act 1999.

Mr Vartzokas is an architect. Through his company he agreed to provide architectural services in connection with the development of a 5 storey apartment block in Prospect Rd Adelaide to the developer, Nazero Contructions Pty Ltd.

He provided the services and sent in his bill for $48,100.

Mr Younan seems to have been the principal of Nazero Constructions and was the person with whom Mr Vartzokas dealt.

With some difficulty, Mr Vartzokas managed to extract payments totalling $25,000 from Mr Younan. When Mr Vartzokas sent in his final bill for the remaining $23,100 with the final drawings, the drawings were endorsed with the statement:[2]

These drawings are the copyright property of the architect and are not to be reproduced or copied without prior written license of the architect.

Needless to say (this is a court case afterall), Mr Vartzokas was not paid his outstanding $23,100.

Instead, he was contacted by a Mr Chen on behalf of Yi Hong Pty Ltd, which was about to purchase the Prospect Rd property and wanted to engage Mr Vartzokas to provide further architectural services in relation to it.

Mr Chen provided Mr Vartzokas with copies of the working drawings for the property which Mr Chen had obtained from Mr Younan in connection with the proposed purchase and wanted Mr Vartzokas to work on.

Mr Vartzokas recognised the drawings as being the ones he had prepared for Mr Younan and Nacero Constructions. Only the authorship was attributed to “JB Archi-Build”!

Unbeknownst to Mr Vartzokas, around the time Mr Vartzokas was having trouble extracting his initial payments from Mr Younan, Mr Younan caused a new company, Nazero Group SA Pty Ltd to be incorporated. Nazero Constructions sold the Prospect Rd property to Nacero Group for $1,017,500. Nacero Constructions then changed its name to Zeecat Constructions.

When Mr Chen provided the “JB Archi-Build” drawings to Mr Vartzokas, Mr Vartzokas discovered the existence of Nacero Group and that it was in the process of selling the Prospect Rd property to Yi Hong for $1,190,000. Settlement on the contract was due the next day following the hearing.

Mr Vartzokas sued seeking a mareva injunction to require the proceeds from the sale (after paying out the bank holding a registered mortgage over the property) be paid into the Federal Circuit Court pending trial of Mr Vartzokas’ copyright infringement claims.

Judge Brown granted the mareva injunction ex parte. On the question whether Mr Vartzokas had demonstrated a real risk that the assets would be dissipated and the Court’s process frustrated, his Honour pointed to the sneaky swap in ownership of the Prospect Rd property between Mr Younan’s companies, his failure to pay all Mr Vartzokas’ bills and continued use of the drawings without payment or recognition:

[35] I am also satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case that there is a real risk of assets being dissipated, if the relief sought is not granted. In my view, the significant evidence in this regard arises as a consequence of the change of name of Nazero Constructions Pty Ltd, which coincided with that entity not honouring the invoices submitted to it by the applicant. This failure to pay its debt, to the applicant, ultimately led to the winding up of the company concerned.

[36] More significantly, after the company had been liquidated, Mr Younan incorporated an entity with a similar name and transferred the land at Prospect to it. At the same time, Mr Younan appears to have been intent on developing the land in a similar manner to that which envisaged the intellectual input of Mr Vartzokas, but without either payment or recognition to him.

[37] In all these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is a significant risk that, if the injunction sought is not made, the proceeds of sale of the Prospect property will not be available to the applicant to either satisfy any award of damages to which he is entitled or to provide any accounting for the profits made on the sale of the land concerned, which, at least on a prima facie basis, seems to have included his architectural designs to be utilised on the property’s development.

His Honour also noted there was no prejudice to third parties as the bank mortgagee would get paid its due before money’s were paid into court.

Vartzokas Architects Pty Ltd v Nacero Group SA Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 849


  1. Yes, I know we are supposed to call them an asset preservation order, but really ….  ?
  2. The usual implied licence can be excluded by an express written term to the contrary: Devefi v Mateffy Perl Nagy  ?

Now for the PLAYGO word mark

Moshinsky J has now extended the declarations and injunctions in the Playgro v Playgo proceedings to include the PLAYGO word mark, but refused orders to recall infringing products and for delivery up.

The previous decision concerned the use of the PLAYGO device. This device appeared prominently on the top and the four sides of the product packaging. In small print (6 point or 8 point) on the bottom of the packaging, the following legend was printed:

Screen Shot 2016-05-11 at 12.28.21 PM

Moshinsky J has now ruled that PLAYGO in the first line of that “notice” also infringed, but not the other occurrences of PLAYGO in the company names.

The respondents argued that the PLAYGO device placed prominently on the top and sides of the packaging was clearly the trade mark and would be understood by the consumers to be the trade mark. This “notice” was just a legend referring to that device. Consumers would never even see it, unless they picked the package up and looked at its underside. His Honour said at [17]:

In the present case, the word, ‘PLAYGO’ was immediately followed by the letters, ‘TM’ in superscript and the words “is a trademark of”. These are strong indicators that the word, ‘PLAYGO’ is being used as a trade mark, that is, as a ‘badge of origin’ to distinguish the respondents’ playthings from playthings made by others. While the nature and purpose of the use of the word must be considered in the context of the packaging as a whole, which includes the Playgo Device Mark on the front and sides of the box, the fact that the Playgo Device Mark is used as a trade mark does not diminish the fact, in this case, that the word, ‘PLAYGO’ in the small print is also being used as a trade mark. This case may be contrasted with cases where a word which is arguably descriptive is used in small print on the packaging and it is concluded that, in the context of the packaging as a whole, including the use of a prominent brand elsewhere on the packet, the word is not being used as a trade mark: compare, for example, Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestle Australia Ltd (2010) 86 IPR 1 at [22], [37]-[40] per Sundberg J; Nature’s Blend Pty Ltd v Nestlé Australia Ltd (2010) 87 IPR 464 at [42], [48] per Stone, Gordon and McKerracher JJ. In the present case, the word, ‘PLAYGO’ is not descriptive and the presence of the superscript letters, ‘TM’ and the words “is a trademark of” indicate use as a trade mark.

Even if the word PLAYGO in the first line of the “notice” could be seen as a legend, it would be sufficient that one of the impressions a consumer could take away from the use was that it was used as a trade mark and that was the case here.

Bearing in mind that Playgo was outside Australia (in China) and supplied its products there to retailers who imported them into Australia for sale, the injunctions Moshinsky J ordered were against supplying for sale in Australia playthings under or by reference to the PLAYGO device or in packaging bearing both the PLAYGO device and the word PLAYGO in small print on the packaging (other than as part of a company name).

The words “under or by reference to” were preferred to “use as a trade mark” as, while the latter expression is the term used in the Act, it was liable to debate and uncertainty about its scope. The use of PLAYGO in the company names was not enjoined as it was not trade mark use. In addition, his Honour was not prepared to enjoin wider uses of PLAYGO where the trial had concerned only the limited use in small print on the bottom of the packaging.

Moshinsky J refused to order Playgo to recall all unsold goods. Playgo had stopped supplying goods with the trade mark in November 2014. His Honour considered it unlikely that stocks would still be held by retailers. Even if there were, there was no evidence that Playgo had any right to require the retailers to return the products. (That of course does not mean that retailers who sell would not infringe.)

The order for delivery up was also refused. This was because any goods in Playgo’s possession or control were in China – where it was located and operated – and could be sold to places other than Australia where there might not be an infringement.

Playgro Pty Ltd v Playgo Art & Craft Manufactory Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 478

Abilify interlocutory injunction continues pending appeal

Last month, Yates J found that Otsuka’s patent for aripiprazole was invalid.[1] As a consequence, his Honour ordered that the interlocutory injunction preventing Generic Health from listing its product on the PBS and selling it be dissolved. Otsuka has appealed and now Nicholas J has granted a stay to preserve the interlocutory injunction pending the appeal.

While not being prepared to characterise Otsuka’s prospects on the appeal as higher than arguable, Nicholas J considered the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the interlocutory injunction.

Otsuka relied principally on the fact that there would be an automatic reduction of 16% the price payable under the PBS for Abilify[2] once Generic Health’s product was listed. It contended that it would not be possible to recover that price drop if its appeal were successful.

Generic Health countered that it risked losing the benefits of first mover advantage if it were enjoined and other generic producers were not. Generic Health’s evidence was that pharmacists would usually only carry one generic brand of each drug and that was likely to be the first brand “in”. This would exacerbate the difficulties in calculating its losses. Nicholas J did not dismiss that argument, but Otsuka said it would be seeking interlocutory injunctions against any other generics who tried to enter the market pending the appeal. Nicholas J noted further that, if Otsuka failed in an injunction applications against a second or further generic, that would be a strong basis to terminate the stay.

The Commonwealth also sought a specific undertaking to pay damages from Otsuka as the price of the injunction. It argues it will suffer loss, in the form of the higher prices payable under the PBS, if Generic Health continues to be enjoined but the appeal ultimately fails.

Nicholas J noted that a case has been stated to the Full Court on whether the Commonwealth can indeed claim under the “usual undertaking as to damages”. Subject to the outcome of that case, his Honour considered the Commonwealth was sufficiently within the scope of the usual undertaking and so did not need a separate, specific undertaking.

Nicholas J increased the security for costs that Otsuka had to provide to Generic Health in the amount of an additional $8.7 million[3] and, in addition, required a security of $6 million separately to the Commonwealth. His Honour also noted that the Commonwealth could apply to extend that security if the appeal was not decied in the first half of 2016.[4]

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 848


  1. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 634. Patentology looked at the ‘swiss claims’ aspects of his Honour’s decision.  ?
  2. The commercial name under which aripiprazole is marketed by Otsuka and its licensee.  ?
  3. Otsuka has already provided $6.5 million pursuant to the orders made by Yates J at first instance.  ?
  4. At [35], Nicholas J recored that the Commonwealth estimated its losses from the continuation of the interlocutory injunction would be $6 million over the next 12 months and $15 million over the next 18 months.  ?

Interlocutory Injunction to transfer domain name

Nicholas J has granted Thomas International an interlocutory injunction ordering Humantech to transfer the domain names, thomasinternational.com.au and thomas.co.za, to Thomas International. Thomas International had to give the usual undertakings and, as a foreign corporation, provide security for costs.

Thomas International is an English company which provides psychological testing and psychometric assessments, and competency and skills-based assessments, particularly using computerised services accessed over the internet through thomasinternational.net. It also makes its materials and services available through distributors. It appointed Humantech, a company associated with a Mr Schutte, as its master distributor/licensee for South Africa and Australia with power to exercise its rights through distributors. Humantech was permitted to use the “Thomas” trade marks, to incorporate a company in Australia under the name Thomas International (Australia) and to register the domain names. There were also obligations when the arrangements ceased or were terminated to cease use of the trade marks and change the corporate name of Thomas International (Australia) to a name which did not include Thomas.

In due course, the Schutte interests also incorporated another entity, ACT, which offered similar services to Thomas International’s assessment and training services. Thomas International alleges that, after some successful years’ trading, revenues from Thomas International (Australia) starting dropping off and the Schutte interests were diverting customers to ACT which, without permission, was using materials based on Thomas International’s materials.

Thomas International sued Humantech, Thomas International (Australia), ACT and Mr Schutte. There was a meeting between the parties and their lawyers shortly after. Thomas International said it would not discuss a new licensing arrangement until an undertaking dealing with the existing issues was provided. As a result, Humantech and the Schutte interests provided an undertaking to cease use of Thomas International’s trade marks, intellectual property and to transfer the domain names over. Thomas International also agreed to negotiate about a new licensing arrangement in good faith.

The next day Thomas International made its licence proposal to the Schutte interests. They considered it was financially unworkable and left the meeting. Later that day, they then put Humantech (and subsequently the other corporate entities) into administration and disabled the website. Shortly thereafter, Thomas International applied for interlocutory injunctions.

As noted, Nicholas J granted the interlocutory injunctions including an order that the domain names be transferred to Thomas International. The terms of the Undertaking meant it had a prima facie case to force the Schutte interests to stop using the Thomas name and trade mark and for the transfer of the domain names.

The Schutte interests’ main attempt to rebut that was their argument that the Undertaking was invalid or unenforceable. That was said to result because, it was alleged, that Thomas International extracted the Undertaking in return for its promise to negotiate a new licence arrangement in good faith. The Schutte interests contended that the terms of the licence they were offered were so unreasonable as to show that Thomas International did not negotiate, and had no intention of negotiating, in good faith. This issue was not developed in detail at this stage, but Nicholas J pointed out that, on the current state of the law in Australia, an obligation to negotiate in good faith did not require a party to subordinate its own interests to that of the other party.

On the balance of convenience, Nicholas J accepted Thomas International’s argument that:

the present state of affairs may cause TIL significant reputational damage as a result of customers who have purchased units entitling them to make use of facilities provided by TIL at the Thomas Hub being prevented from gaining access to it through the TIA website. I accept this submission. I also consider that any such damage may be irreparable and that damages will most likely not provide an adequate remedy. The financial statements of TIA for the financial year ending 30 June 2014 show that the company has net assets of just under $145,000.

On the other hand, the Schutte interests’ main argument was the disruption to their business, and that of their customers, if they could not continue to use the domain names, the main access point for provision of services both to Thomas International (Australia)’s customers and those ACT. As Nicholas J pointed out, however, the Schutte parties had already disabled access to the websites so they had already caused that problem themselves.

It would appear that Thomas International first learned something about ACT’s activities, the subject of the complaint, in May 2014 (i.e., a year earlier). However, Thomas International was able to lead evidence showing all the work it did, and the difficulties it encounted, in trying to ascertain what ACT was doing until proceedings were issued. In this context, the termination by Humantech of the main employee with responsibilities for running the Thomas part of its business may will have been highly significant.

Permission to proceed against the companies although administrators were appointed was granted as the interests of the administrators were adequately protected by the undertaking as to damages and provision for securities.

Thomas International Limited v Humantech Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 541

Blocking injunctions – the Bill

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.  ?

Springboard injunctions and patents

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.  ?

3 stripes v 4 stripes: the remedies

4 stripes 3 stripes now the remedies

Following the decision a couple of months back that 3 of 12 Pacific Brands’s shoes had infringed adidas’ 3-stripes trade mark, Robertson J has now:

  1. made a declaration that Pacific Brands infringed;
  2. granted an injunction permanently restraining Pacific Brands from making or selling etc. 2 of the 3 shoes found to infringe;[1]
  3. awarded $20,000 damages; and
  4. ordered Pacific Brands to pay 30% of adidas’ costs.

The amount of damages was resolved between the parties. There are a couple of points of interest in the terms of the injunction and the costs order.

First, in relation to the injunction, adidas had sought an injunction which restrained Pacific Brands both in relation to the specific shoes found to infringe and also “from otherwise infringing” the 3-stripes trade mark. Robertson J refused this wider injunction. The practical reality of 9 styles either abandoned or found not to infringe served a telling warning against the injunction sought:

because, as these proceedings have shown, such an order would lack sufficient clarity and definition and the Court should not make an order in relation to conduct where a person would not readily know whether or not its proposed conduct breached the order. What is the appropriate relief must depend on the facts and on the underlying dispute and I do not derive much assistance from the form of relief granted in trade mark cases which concerned primarily words because infringements by words are generally clearer than by designs.[2]

His Honour also refused to include one of the 3 infringing styles in the order because the shoe had been taken off the market 7 years earlier and there was no sufficient risk of its reintroduction. While the other 2 infringing shoes had been taken off the market in 2009, an injunction was warranted. First, no unconditional undertaking had been given in relation to them. Secondly, while a broad undertaking had been given, his Honour considered the sale of these 2 styles after that undertaking was in place breached it. His Honour also considered that the evidence that Pacific Brands’ Global Trading division – the “division” which had sold the shoes – had been closed down was not “sufficiently cogent” to persuade him that there was no sufficient further risk of infringement.

Thirdly, the terms of the injunction extend also to authorising, directing or procuring other to make or sell the infringing shoes.

On the costs question, Robertson J considered the “old” rules which included an automatic one third reduction to the costs where less than $100,000 was recovered were applicable as the action started before the new, 2011, rules came into force. However, his Honour exercised his discretion not to apply that rule. The Federal Court was an appropriate forum to have brought the action in and damages were not the primary relief being sought. The costs were reduced, however, to reflect the degree of adidas’ success, particularly bearing in mind it had pursued 12 styles of shoe as part of an overall strategy to obtain broad injunctive relief. The little weight accorded to the survey having regard to the substantial amount of evidence it involved, in the face of Pacific Brands’ objections, was also a factor in the reduction of costs.

Adidas AG v Pacific Brands Footwear Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 1335


  1. The terms of the injunction were:  ?

    The respondent, whether by its servants, agents or otherwise, be permanently restrained from:

    (a) manufacturing, procuring the manufacture of, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell, supplying, offering to supply or distributing footwear in the form depicted in any of Exhibits K or L in these proceedings, being the footwear depicted in Annexures B and C to these Orders;
    (b) authorising, directing or procuring any other company or person to engage in any of the conduct restrained by sub-paragraph (a).

  2. This may be contrasted with the typical injunction in a patent case that thou shalt not infringe the patent; leaving the infringer to run the gauntlet.  ?

Apple and Samsung in the High Court 3

As is well known by now, the High Court dismissed Apple’s application for special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s dissolution of the interlocutory injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. This means that Samsung can legitimately offer the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for sale in Australia pending trial and subject to an undertaking to keep full accounts.

The transcript of the High Court hearing (French CJ, Gummow and Bell JJ) is now up. In refusing special leave, French CJ said on behalf of the Court:

The organising principles upon which applications for interlocutory injunctions are determined are set out in O’Neill and, as is emphasised in those passages, the governing consideration is that the requisite strength of the probability of ultimate success depends upon the nature of the rights asserted by the plaintiff and the practical consequences likely to flow from the grant of interlocutory relief, the reference to “practical consequences” including the considerations which are present where the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction, in effect, disposes of the action in favour of the successful party on that application.

This appears to have been a case where the decision on the interlocutory application effectively would determine the outcome of the dispute, hence, as the Full Court emphasised, the requirement for a reasoned examination of the strength of Apple’s case. ….

That is, as both parties accepted the interlocutory injunction was effectively final relief in that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 would be well and truly superseded by the final resolution of the case (including any appeals), Apple needed to demonstrate a strong case for infringement.

While the High Court panel accepted the judge hearing an interlocutory injunction might not always be expected to forecast the outcome of the case at the interlocutory stage, the practical consequences in this case meant that was necessary. In undertaking that exercise, the Full Federal Court had made no error of principle (and, unsurprisingly, the High Court was certainly not going to engage, at this stage, in claim construction and reviewing the evidence).

Apple Inc & Anor v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited & Anor [2011] HCATrans 341

ISPs and filtering

While we wait with bated breath for the High Court’s deliberations on Roadshow v iiNet (transcript of hearing here, here and here), it is worth noting that the CJEU (formerly the ECJ) has struck down an injunction against an ISP which required the ISP to monitor all its users’ traffic and filter (block) copyright infringing material.

SABAM, the Belgian authors’ collecting society (counterpart to APRA) obtained an interlocutory injunction against Scarlet, an ISP. SABAM contended that some of Scarlet’s customers were using its services to engage in peer-to-peer file sharing of copyright materials without authorisation. It obtained from the Belgian courts an order that Scarlet implement a system of filtering to ensure that its users were blocked or otherwise made it impossible for them to send or receive in any way, files containing a musical work using peer-to-peer software without the permission of the copyright owners.

It was common ground between the parties that this would require Scarlet to introduce a system for filtering:

–        all electronic communications passing via its services, in particular those involving the use of peer-to-peer software;

–        which applies indiscriminately to all its customers;

–        as a preventive measure;

–        exclusively at its expense; and

–        for an unlimited period,

which is capable of identifying on that provider’s network the movement of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant claims to hold intellectual property rights, with a view to blocking the transfer of files the sharing of which infringes copyrigh

It was also common ground between the parties that such a system would require :

–        first, that the ISP (Scarlet) identify, within all of the electronic communications of all its customers, the files relating to peer-to-peer traffic;

–        secondly, that it identify, within that traffic, the files containing works in respect of which holders of intellectual-property rights claim to hold rights;

–        thirdly, that it determine which of those files are being shared unlawfully; and

–        fourthly, that it block file sharing that it considers to be unlawful.

That is, the ISP would have to monitor all the traffic across its network.

While the CJEU recognised that IP, in this case copyright, was a fundamental right. It also recognised that its protection needed to be balanced against the protection of other fundamental interests. It was necessary to strike a fair balance between the rights of copyright owners, ISPs and their customers. This injunction did not do that and so was incompatible with Community law (we would say “invalid”):

47      In the present case, the injunction requiring the installation of the contested filtering system involves monitoring all the electronic communications made through the network of the ISP concerned in the interests of those rightholders. Moreover, that monitoring has no limitation in time, is directed at all future infringements and is intended to protect not only existing works, but also future works that have not yet been created at the time when the system is introduced.

48      Accordingly, such an injunction would result in a serious infringement of the freedom of the ISP concerned to conduct its business since it would require that ISP to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense, which would also be contrary to the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/48, which requires that measures to ensure the respect of intellectual-property rights should not be unnecessarily complicated or costly.

49      In those circumstances, it must be held that the injunction to install the contested filtering system is to be regarded as not respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between, on the one hand, the protection of the intellectual-property right enjoyed by copyright holders, and, on the other hand, that of the freedom to conduct business enjoyed by operators such as ISPs.

50      Moreover, the effects of that injunction would not be limited to the ISP concerned, as the contested filtering system may also infringe the fundamental rights of that ISP’s customers, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter respectively.

Thus, the filtering injunction did not strike a fair balance between the protection of IP and the rights of ISPs and their customers.

Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM, 24 November 2011.

IPKat has the text of the CJEU’s Summary and as they point out, the CJEU’s ruling has some interesting implications for the filtering injunction ordered by Arnold J in Newzbin 2.

Of course, in Australia, we do not labour under a Charter of Rights. Section 116AH(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 does, however, place some limits on a “carriage service provider’s” obligations to monitor:

(2)  Nothing in the conditions is to be taken to require a carriage service provider to monitor its service or to seek facts to indicate infringing activity except to the extent required by a standard technical measure mentioned in condition 2 in table item 1 in the table in subsection (1),

which is a rather more anodyne protection. Also, under the Telecommunications Act, carriers and carriage service providers have prohibitions on disclosing information related to communications (which is not the same thing as a prohibition on monitoring), but there are important exceptions including disclosures authorised by or under law. Cf  e.g. ss 276 and 280.

 

Apple v Samsung in the High Court 2

Apple’s application for special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision to discharge the interlocutory injunction granted by Bennett J will be heard on Friday, 9 December 2011 in Sydney.

In granting the stay on the Full Federal Court’s orders, Heydon J pointed out that the fact that 2 experienced patent judges had reached opposition conclusions, in circumstances which his Honour characterised as the appeal court not disturbing Bennett J’s findings of fact, indicated Apple’s case was not without some prospects of success.

Perhaps more interesting at the level of tea leaf reading, Heydon J expressed his personal concern that no expedited final hearing was ordered in this case:

Secondly, to my mind at least, it is deeply troubling that there was no expedited final hearing in this case. Precisely why there was not, on my perhaps limited acquaintance with the materials, is a somewhat murky question. But why it is that no expedited final hearing took place and how the courts below dealt with the fact that no expedited final hearing took place is a matter of some public interest in the sense in which Ms Howard was using that expression and is a matter which may be thought worthy of close investigation on the special leave hearing.

The Full Federal Court appeared to discount Samsung’s resistance to an expedited hearing.

Apple Inc v Samsung [2011] HCATrans 326