IPC Global Pty Ltd v Pavetest Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 260

IPC Global Pty Ltd v Pavetest Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 260

The respondents infringed copyright and breached confidence in relation to the applicant's software and firmware; permanent injunctions and destruction orders are warranted regarding version 1 of the Pavetest TestLab Software, but a 'springboard' injunction is not granted as the period of unfair advantage gained has already expired. Monetary remedies are appropriate for the head start gained; a permanent injunction regarding confidential information is unwarranted due to no current threat and information mixture. Respondents must pay applicant’s costs and provide discovery for quantification of relief.

Parties
Applicant: IPC Global Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Pavetest Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Con Sinadinos; Third Respondent: Alan John Feeley; Fourth Respondent: Aleuta Technology Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Liability Judgment, Relief and Orders
Outcome
Declarations granted for copyright infringement and breach of confidence; permanent injunctions granted regarding version 1 software; application against fourth respondent dismissed; monetary relief to be quantified; respondents to pay applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Breach of Confidence, Springboard Injunction, Computer Software, Permanent Injunction, Damages, Account of Profits
Intellectual Property Copyright Infringement Breach of Confidence Springboard Injunction Computer Software Permanent Injunction Damages Account of Profits

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 2 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IPC Global Pty Ltd

Applicant

Pavetest Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Con Sinadinos

Second Respondent

Alan John Feeley

Third Respondent

Aleuta Technology Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Liability Judgment, Relief and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents infringed copyright in UTS Software
  2. 2 Whether respondents breached duties of confidence regarding software and firmware
  3. 3 Whether a 'springboard' injunction should be granted due to misuse of confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents infringed copyright and breached confidence in relation to the applicant's software and firmware; permanent injunctions and destruction orders are warranted regarding version 1 of the Pavetest TestLab Software, but a 'springboard' injunction is not granted as the period of unfair advantage gained has already expired. Monetary remedies are appropriate for the head start gained; a permanent injunction regarding confidential information is unwarranted due to no current threat and information mixture. Respondents must pay applicant’s costs and provide discovery for quantification of relief.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted for copyright infringement and breach of confidence; permanent injunctions granted regarding version 1 software; application against fourth respondent dismissed; monetary relief to be quantified; respondents to pay applicant's costs.

Orders

  • Declarations of copyright infringement and breach of confidence by respondents
  • Permanent injunction restraining first respondent from infringing copyright in UTS Software via version 1 of Pavetest TestLab Software