Datadot Technology Ltd v Alpha Microtech Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 962

Datadot Technology Ltd v Alpha Microtech Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 962

The SmartDOT system contained each integer of claim 1 of the Innovation Patent, and the respondent's video tape and installation guide instructed users to use the system in a way that would infringe the patent. Because the respondent was neither the patentee nor a licensee, its supply of the SmartDOT system infringed the Innovation Patent under s 117 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The revocation cross-claim failed because no evidence or submissions were adduced in support of it. A s 19 certificate was refused because there had been no contested issue concerning validity despite the filing of the cross-claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceeding Concerning Australian Innovation Patent No 2001100633 With Cross Claim Challenging Validity / Final Hearing on Issues Other Than Pecuniary Relief and Quantum; Respondent Did Not Appear; Pecuniary Relief and Quantum Deferred
Outcome
Infringement declared, permanent injunction granted, cross-claim dismissed, s 19 certificate refused, quantum of pecuniary relief stood over, and respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs to date.
Legal Topics
['innovation Patent Infringement' 'revocation Cross Claim' 'indirect Infringement by Supply' 'patent Validity Certificate' 'permanent Injunction' 'no Appearance by Respondent']
['patents' 'practice and Procedure'] ['innovation Patent Infringement' 'revocation Cross Claim' 'indirect Infringement by Supply' 'patent Validity Certificate' 'permanent Injunction' 'no Appearance by Respondent']

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

Patent Infringement Proceeding Concerning Australian Innovation Patent No 2001100633 With Cross Claim Challenging Validity / Final Hearing on Issues Other Than Pecuniary Relief and Quantum; Respondent Did Not Appear; Pecuniary Relief and Quantum Deferred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's SmartDOT system contained each integer of claim 1 of Australian Innovation Patent No 2001100633." 'Whether supply of the SmartDOT system infringed the Innovation Patent under s 117(1) and s 117(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).' "Whether the respondent's cross-claim for revocation of the Innovation Patent should succeed." 'Whether a certificate should issue under s 19 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).' 'Whether injunctive and declaratory relief should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The SmartDOT system contained each integer of claim 1 of the Innovation Patent, and the respondent's video tape and installation guide instructed users to use the system in a way that would infringe the patent. Because the respondent was neither the patentee nor a licensee, its supply of the SmartDOT system infringed the Innovation Patent under s 117 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The revocation cross-claim failed because no evidence or submissions were adduced in support of it. A s 19 certificate was refused because there had been no contested issue concerning validity despite the filing of the cross-claim.

Court Disposition

Infringement declared, permanent injunction granted, cross-claim dismissed, s 19 certificate refused, quantum of pecuniary relief stood over, and respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs to date.

Orders

  • ['The Court declared that the supply, sale, distribution or use by the respondent of application equipment comprising the system known as SmartDOT, of which Exhibits MKM-1, MKM-2 and MKM-3 constitute an example, constitutes an infringement of Innovation Patent No. 2001100633.' 'The respondent be permanently...