Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
P. 1
Federal Court judgment in Samsung v Apple case

Federal Court judgment in Samsung v Apple case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19,968|Likes:
Published by ABC News Online

More info:

Published by: ABC News Online on Nov 30, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156
Citation: Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011]FCAFC 156Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Apple Inc. v SamsungElectronics Co Limited [2011] FCA 1164Parties:
File number:NSD 1792 of 2011Judges:
Date of judgment: 30 November 2011Catchwords:
– appeal from decision to grant interlocutoryinjunctions – leave to appeal required – injunction haseffect of finally determining the main matter at issue –leave granted – principles to be applied on appeal in such amatter discussed
– claim of infringement of two patents –assertion of invalidity of one of those patents –interlocutory injunctive relief sought – whether strength of the infringement case and the balance of convenience and justice sufficient to sustain the grant of interlocutoryinjunction – fast-moving product – injunction likely todetermine the fate of the product
– interlocutoryinjunctions – relevant principles discussed – Court mustevaluate the strength of the probability of success for theapplicant and to take that evaluation into account whenassessing the balance of convenience and justiceLegislation:
 Australian Consumer Law
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 
(Cth), s 23
 Judiciary Act 1903
(Cth), s 35(1)
Patents Act 1990
(Cth), ss 40, 116, 122 and Schedule 1Cases cited:
 AB Hassle v Pharmacia (Aust) Pty Ltd 
(1995) 33 IPR 63cited
 Aktiebolaget Hassle v Biochemie Australia Pty Ltd 
(2003)57 IPR 1 cited
 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 
[1975] AC 396 cited
 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game MeatsPty Ltd 
(2001) 208 CLR 199 applied
 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill
(2006) 227CLR 57 applied
 Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v TheCommonwealth
(1953) 94 CLR 621 applied
 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2)
(2009) 253 ALR 324 cited
 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd 
(1968)118 CLR 618 cited
 Bienstein v Bienstein
(2003) 195 ALR 225 cited
C. Van der Lely N.V. v Bamfords Limited 
[1963] RPC 61followed
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd 
(1999) 198 CLR 380 cited
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia
(1986) 161CLR 148 cited
 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc
(1991) 33FCR 397 applied
 E I Du Pont de Nemours & Co v ICI Chemicals &Polymers Ltd 
(2005) 66 IPR 462 followed
 Ex parte Bucknell
(1936) 56 CLR 221 applied
Flexible Steel Lacing Company v Beltreco Ltd 
(2000) 49IPR 331 cited
 H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd 
(2009) 177 FCR151 cited
 Hexal Australia Pty Ltd v Roche Therapeutics Inc
(2005)66 IPR 325 cited
 Hill v Evans
(1862) 4 De GF & J 288; 1A IPR 1 followed
 Hoechst Celanese Corp v BP Chemicals Ltd 
[1998] FSR586
 House v The King
(1936) 55 CLR 499 applied
 Instyle Contract Textiles Pty Ltd v Good EnvironmentalChoice Services Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2010] FCA 38 cited
 Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents
(2008) 79IPR 261; [2008] FCA 1498 cited
 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd 
(2000) 104FCR 564 followed
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL
(1987) 8NSWLR 533 followed
 Mallet v Mallet 
(1984) 156 CLR 605 applied
 Marley New Zealand Ltd v Icon Plastics Pty Ltd 
[2007]FCA 851 cited
 Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd 
(1988)81 ALR 543 cited
 Medrad Inc v Alpine Pty Ltd 
(2009) 82 IPR 101 cited
 Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co
(1990)91 ALR 513 cited
 Norbis v Norbis
(1986) 161 CLR 513 applied
 NWL Ltd v Woods
[1979] 3 All ER 614 cited
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v MaritimeUnion of Australia
(1998) 195 CLR 1 applied
 Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced BuildingSystems Pty Ltd 
(1999) 164 ALR 239 cited
Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth
(2009)81 IPR 339 cited
Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University HealthSciences
(2009) 82 IPR 467 cited
Tait v The Queen
(1962) 108 CLR 620 cited
Tidy Tea Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd 
(1995) 32 IPR 405cited
Trade Practices Commission v Rank Commercial Ltd 
(1994) 53 FCR 303 cited
Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel
(1961) 106 CLR 607applied
Yara Australia Pty Ltd v Burrup Holdings Ltd 
(2011) 80ACSR 641 citedAshburner,
The Principles of Equity
edn, 1933)Miller R, Burkill G, Birss C, Campbell D,
Terrell on the Law of Patents
(17th edn, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 2010)Spry,
The Principles of Equitable Remedies
(5th edn, 1997)Spry,
The Principles of Equitable Remedies
(8th edn, 2010)Date of hearing: 25 November 2011Place: SydneyDivision:GENERAL DIVISIONCategory: CatchwordsNumber of paragraphs: 206Counsel for the Applicants/ Appellants:Mr NJ Young QC and Mr NR MurraySolicitor for the Applicants/ Appellants:Blake DawsonCounsel for theRespondents:Mr SCG Burley SC, Mr C Dimitriadis and Mr ADB FoxSolicitor for theRespondents:Freehills

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Khalid Memon liked this
bigy27 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->