ACP Machinery Australia Pty Ltd v Aerospace Technologies of Australia Ltd (No 3)

The dispute between ACP Machinery Australia Pty Ltd and Aerospace Technologies of Australia Ltd (No 3) was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. ACP, a distributor of Breton CNC machines, sought injunctions and damages against ASTA and Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Ltd (BAA), alleging breaches of contract and copyright infringements. The contract in question was made in 2001, and the copyright works were created around the same time. ASTA, which was involved in the manufacture of parts for Boeing aircraft, had contracted ACP for the supply of a CNC machine and a universal holding fixture (UHF). The UHF was designed to be used with the CNC machine for the precise trimming and drilling of empennage panels for Boeing 777 aircraft. Following a business reorganisation in 2003, ASTA's business was sold to BAA, but the respondents defended ACP’s claims as though BAA was the embodiment of ASTA, responsible for the agreements and actions of ASTA.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the contract between ACP and ASTA and the identification and protection of copyright in the specifications table included in the contract. ACP argued that the specifications table was a substantial part of a copyright work created by one of its employees, and that BAA’s use of this table without permission constituted copyright infringement. Additionally, ACP contended that BAA breached the contract by failing to pay the full contract price and for other alleged breaches. The respondents denied these allegations, asserting that the specifications table was not subject to copyright protection and that any contractual obligations had been fulfilled.

The court considered the nature of the specifications table and its authorship, concluding that it was not a work eligible for copyright protection as it lacked originality. The court also examined the contractual obligations and found that BAA had fulfilled its contractual duties, including the payment of the full contract price. Therefore, the court dismissed ACP’s claims of copyright infringement and breach of contract, ruling in favour of the respondents.

As a result of the court’s decision, ACP’s claims for injunctions and damages were dismissed, and no liability was found on the part of BAA for the alleged breaches of contract or copyright infringement.