Transfield Pty Ltd v Arlo International Ltd [1980] HCA 15
Clause 7 of the sub-licence does not, on its proper construction, amount to a contractual prohibition or restriction on using articles or processes other than the Arlo pole, and therefore is not void under s. 112(1) of the Patents Act; nor does it substantially lessen competition so as to be unenforceable under s. 45 of the Trade Practices Act. The appeal is dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court of Australia (final Appeal From NSW Court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['patent Licensing' 'breach of Contract' 'anticompetitive Contracts' 'best Endeavours Obligation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia (final Appeal From NSW Court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether clause 7 of the sub-licence agreement is void under s. 112(1) of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth)' 'Whether clause 7 is unenforceable under s. 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)' "Construction of 'best endeavours' obligation in patent sub-licence"]
Ratio Decidendi
Clause 7 of the sub-licence does not, on its proper construction, amount to a contractual prohibition or restriction on using articles or processes other than the Arlo pole, and therefore is not void under s. 112(1) of the Patents Act; nor does it substantially lessen competition so as to be unenforceable under s. 45 of the Trade Practices Act. The appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment