Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No_2] [1993] HCA 6

Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No_2] [1993] HCA 6

The respondents were not denied an opportunity to be heard on the issues decisive to the earlier appeal. The issues regarding the reproduction of a substantial part of the computer program, including whether the look-up table constituted a substantial part and could be protected, were open on the pleadings, addressed at trial, in the Full Court, and in written/oral argument (including further written submissions before judgment). The Court’s jurisdiction to reopen its judgment arises only in rare cases, and was not enlivened here. The application to reopen judgment was refused, and the original orders (in Autodesk Inc v Dyason) were confirmed, with the respondents restrained from...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Reopen/vacate Judgment; Subsequent Orders
Outcome
Application to vacate judgment refused; orders confirmed (appeal allowed with costs; injunctive relief granted to Autodesk)
Legal Topics
['copyright' 'computer Programs' 'substantial Part' 'procedural Fairness' 'finality of Litigation']
['intellectual Property'] ['copyright' 'computer Programs' 'substantial Part' 'procedural Fairness' 'finality of Litigation']

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 / Application to Reopen/vacate Judgment; Subsequent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents were denied a fair opportunity to be heard on decisive issues in the earlier appeal' 'Jurisdiction and principles governing when the High Court will reopen or vacate its judgments' 'Whether copying data (such as a look-up table) from a computer program can amount to copying a substantial part under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were not denied an opportunity to be heard on the issues decisive to the earlier appeal. The issues regarding the reproduction of a substantial part of the computer program, including whether the look-up table constituted a substantial part and could be protected, were open on the pleadings, addressed at trial, in the Full Court, and in written/oral argument (including further written submissions before judgment). The Court’s jurisdiction to reopen its judgment arises only in rare cases, and was not enlivened here. The application to reopen judgment was refused, and the original orders (in Autodesk Inc v Dyason) were confirmed, with the respondents restrained from...

Court Disposition

Application to vacate judgment refused; orders confirmed (appeal allowed with costs; injunctive relief granted to Autodesk)

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Orders 1, 3 and 4 of the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside.' 'Order 1 of Northrop J. dated 15 September 1989 varied to restrain the respondents from reproducing, selling, letting for hire, etc., the whole or substantial part of Autocad or Widget C as specified.' 'The appeal to...