Kafataris v Davis [2016] FCAFC 134

Kafataris v Davis [2016] FCAFC 134

The inventive concept in the PCT Application was a method of wagering by which a secondary or auxiliary betting option could be exercised independently or in cooperation with a primary card game. The Provisional Application already disclosed that inventive concept, with baccarat as an embodiment. Mr Kafataris did not contribute to the conception of that inventive concept; he identified blackjack as another example in which the existing supplementary betting concept could be applied. That was not a material, tangible or qualitative contribution to the invention. The confidential information claim also failed because the appellants had accepted that failure on inventorship meant failure on...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Kafataris V Davis [2014] NSWSC 1454
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['co Inventorship' 'inventive Concept' 'pct Patent Application' 'provisional Patent Application' 'misuse of Confidential Information' 'supplementary Betting Option for Card Games']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'equity'] ['co Inventorship' 'inventive Concept' 'pct Patent Application' 'provisional Patent Application' 'misuse of Confidential Information' 'supplementary Betting Option for Card Games']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Kafataris V Davis [2014] NSWSC 1454

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Con Kafataris should be recognised under s 15 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) as a co-inventor of the PCT Application.' 'Whether identifying a supplementary betting option within blackjack was a material contribution to the invention described and claimed in the PCT Application.' 'Whether differences between the Provisional Application and the PCT Application showed that Mr Kafataris contributed to the inventive concept.' 'Whether the respondents misused confidential information supplied by Mr Kafataris in relation to blackjack.']

Ratio Decidendi

The inventive concept in the PCT Application was a method of wagering by which a secondary or auxiliary betting option could be exercised independently or in cooperation with a primary card game. The Provisional Application already disclosed that inventive concept, with baccarat as an embodiment. Mr Kafataris did not contribute to the conception of that inventive concept; he identified blackjack as another example in which the existing supplementary betting concept could be applied. That was not a material, tangible or qualitative contribution to the invention. The confidential information claim also failed because the appellants had accepted that failure on inventorship meant failure on...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellants pay the costs of the respondents, to be assessed if not agreed.']