$150,001 damages for infringing compatibility chart

Tonnex was found to have infringed Dynamic’s copyright in its printer cartridge compatibility chart. That finding was upheld on appeal. Now, Yates J has ordered Tonnex to pay Dynamic $150,001.00 in damages. The damages are comprised of compensatory damages under s115(2) of $1.00 and $150,000 by way of additional damages under s115(4).

The $1.00 nominal damages was agreed by the parties before the hearing. Interestingly, Yates J did not comment on this.[1]

Dynamic had argued for an award of additional damages of $400,000; Tonnex, while denying any award should be made, argued for an amount in the “tens of thousands”. Yates J arrived at $150,000 in the exercise of his Honour’s evaluative judgment.

Yates J’s reasons contain a useful summary of the applicable principles for the court to decide whether it is appropriate to award additional damages at [37] – [53].

Recognising that flagrancy is not required before an award of additional damages can be made, his Honour nonetheless found that the infringement was deliberate and studied. Although Tonnex’ directors denied knowledge of the copying and gave evidence that they had specifically instructed there was to be no copying,[2] the knowledge and acts of the employees involved – who included the National Marketing Manager – were at [101] relevantly the acts and knowledge of Tonnex. Further, Tonnex’ position throughout had not just been reliance on legal advice that copyright could not subsist in such a compilation. It had hi-handedly denied any copying at all.

Yates J also noted that, even if the directors were innocent of infringing knowledge, the situation should have changed after detailed particulars of infringement had been served (albeit late in the picture). Those particulars appear to have identified mistakes and other typographical peculiarities in the Tonnex catalogue which were really consistent only with copying from Dynamic. In other words, the directors were put on inquiry.

Instead, Tonnex sent out 38,000 emails with links to its infringing catalogue after Dynamic notified its infringement claims to it; only stopping just before the liability trial:

…. The cessation of Tonnex’s conduct was taken at a time of its own choosing, without regard to Dynamic’s rights. Regardless of Mr Solomon’s and Mr Kozman’s state of knowledge in that period, by reason of Mr Rendell’s knowledge, Tonnex must be taken to have known the true position regarding its copying of Dynamic’s Compatibility Chart. With that knowledge, it undoubtedly took commercial advantage of its wrongful conduct.

Tonnex did introduce an approvals process to vet material before it was published in future. Yates J was not particularly satisfied by this. His Honour was also concerned that Tonnex’ witnesses did not really exhibit appropriate contrition, but rather saw the litigation as a tactic by Dynamic rather than vindication of its rights.

The need to mark the court’s disapproval of Tonnex’ conduct and signal to the community that it was not alright to copy others’ property with impunity (i.e. deterrence) also played roles.

Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (No 3) [2014] FCA 909


  1. Contrast the apparent questioning of the practice raided by French and Kiefel JJ in [Venus Adult Films v Fraseride][venus] at [94].  ?
  2. it is fair to say his Honour expressed a degree of scepticism towards this evidence at esp. [102] and [103].  ?

A patents case goes to the High Court

The High Court has granted special leave to Alphapharm to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision to allow Lundbeck to apply to extend the term of its Lexapro patent 10 years late. The High Court was not interested at all in the exercise of the discretion to allow a 10 year extension. the question is whether a power to extend time exists at all.

The extension of term provisions for pharmaceutical patents are found in s 70 and s 71(2). Section 71(2) provides that:

An application for an extension of the term of a standard patent must be made during the term of the patent and within 6 months after the latest of the following dates:

(a) the date the patent was granted;

( b) the date of commencement of the first inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods of goods that contain, or consist of, any of the pharmaceutical substances referred to in subsection 70(3);

(c) the date of commencement of this section.

It was common ground that Lundbeck’s application was outside the latest of the possible dates.

However, the Patents Act also provides a power to grant extensions of time in s 223.

Lundbeck’s problem – if it turns out to be a problem – is that s 223(11) says that s 223 cannot be used to extend the time for doing “prescribed actions” and reg. 22.11 specifies as one of the prescribed actions:

filing, during the term of a standard patent under subsection 71(2) of the Act, an application under subsection 70(1) of the Act for an extension of the term of the patent;

In the Federal Court,[1] Yates J at [50] found that Lundbeck’s “application” for an extension of time fell outside this because it really involved 2 requirements:

The making of an application under s 70(1) of the Act is governed by two time limits: the application must be made “during the term of the patent” and within six months of the applicable date in s 71(2)(a) to (c). Both time limits must be observed in order to make an application.

While the requirement that the application be made “during the term of the patent” was caught and so excluded by s 223(11), the second requirement – within 6 months of the applicable date – was not.

The High Court (Kiefel J and Keane J) have granted Alphapharm special leave to argue that, as a matter of construction, there was really only one application.

Lundbeck boldly tried to argue that special leave should not be granted because the issue raised no question of general importance: there not that many applications for an extension of time to apply for an extension of the term of a pharmaceutical patent. Kiefel J retorted sharply:

KIEFEL J: But the extension of a patent is itself an important matter, is it not?

MR NIALL: It is.

KIEFEL J: Very important.

It does raise an interesting question. The extended term expired back in December 2012. Alphapharm and others, however, had entered the market when the original term of the patent expired on 13 June 2009 and before Lundbeck’s application for an extension of time in which to file its application to extend the term had been finalised. Therefore, it would appear that the potential exposure of the generics companies to damages awards (or an account of profits) is up for grabs; i.e., another 3 years.

Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2014] HCATrans 79

Lid dip: Opinions on High

Some other commentaries: here, here and here.


  1. Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] FCAFC 129 (Jessup and Jagot JJ agreeing).  ?