Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 651

Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] FCA 651

The documentary and oral evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that Vertilux was granted a royalty-free exclusive licence to exploit the Patent in Australia to the exclusion of Damorgold and all others, and any authority granted to Acmeda to sell in Australia was a sub-licence consistent with Vertilux's exclusive rights. There was no evidence undermining the existence or effectiveness of Vertilux's exclusive licence under s 120 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceeding / Post Determination of Exclusive Licensee Issue, Costs Orders
Outcome
Vertilux found to be an exclusive licensee of the Patent; costs orders made in favour of applicants.
Legal Topics
['patents' 'exclusive Licence' 'costs']
['intellectual Property Law'] ['patents' 'exclusive Licence' 'costs']

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 / Post Determination of Exclusive Licensee Issue, Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Vertilux Corporation Pty Ltd is the exclusive licensee of the Patent within the meaning of s 120 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)' 'Whether previous authority or licence to Acmeda precluded grant of exclusive licence to Vertilux']

Ratio Decidendi

The documentary and oral evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that Vertilux was granted a royalty-free exclusive licence to exploit the Patent in Australia to the exclusion of Damorgold and all others, and any authority granted to Acmeda to sell in Australia was a sub-licence consistent with Vertilux's exclusive rights. There was no evidence undermining the existence or effectiveness of Vertilux's exclusive licence under s 120 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Vertilux found to be an exclusive licensee of the Patent; costs orders made in favour of applicants.

Orders

  • ["The respondent pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the determination of the issue of whether the second applicant was an exclusive licensee of the Patent, to be taxed (in default of agreement) and paid forthwith." "The respondent pay the second applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding down...