Advanced Gaming Technologies Pty Ltd v Resource Management Force Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 808

Advanced Gaming Technologies Pty Ltd v Resource Management Force Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 808

While a serious question to be tried exists regarding copyright ownership and contractual obligations, the balance of convenience does not favor granting interlocutory injunctive relief. The respondent's undertaking to provide seven days notice before dealing with relevant programmes suffices to protect the applicant's interim interests.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Corporations Dispute, Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory (ruling on Injunction Pending Final Hearing)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunctive relief refused
Legal Topics
['copyright Ownership' 'licensing' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience']
['intellectual Property' 'corporations Law'] ['copyright Ownership' 'licensing' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Corporations Dispute, Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory (ruling on Injunction Pending Final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding copyright ownership in relevant hardware and software programmes' 'Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted pending final hearing' 'Where the balance of convenience lies between the parties']

Ratio Decidendi

While a serious question to be tried exists regarding copyright ownership and contractual obligations, the balance of convenience does not favor granting interlocutory injunctive relief. The respondent's undertaking to provide seven days notice before dealing with relevant programmes suffices to protect the applicant's interim interests.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunctive relief refused

Orders

  • ['Costs of the motion for interlocutory injunction shall be costs in the proceeding' "The Court notes the respondent's undertaking not to deal with 'programmes' with third parties (other than Vidco) without seven days written notice to Vidco and the applicant"]