Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
6Activity
×
P. 1
Federal Court judgment in Samsung v Apple case

Federal Court judgment in Samsung v Apple case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22,620|Likes:
Published by ABC News Online

More info:

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

Availability:

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

11/10/2012

pdf

text

original

 
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
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:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LIMITED andSAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTYLIMITED (ACN 002 915 648) v APPLE INC. andAPPLE PTY LIMITED (ACN 002 510 054)
File number:NSD 1792 of 2011Judges:
Date of judgment: 30 November 2011Catchwords:
APPEAL
– 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
PATENTS
– 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
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
– 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
 
cited
 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
(2
nd
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 (6)

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

You're Reading a Free Preview

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