Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Konami Australia Pty Limited (No 4)

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited brought proceedings against Konami Australia Pty Limited in the Federal Court of Australia concerning patent infringement and associated damages. Aristocrat claimed that Konami had infringed its patents related to gaming technology, and sought relief under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and for an account of profits. The case involved intricate technical issues about the nature and scope of the patents and whether Konami's products had indeed infringed on Aristocrat's intellectual property.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether Konami's products infringed the patents, the extent of the infringement, and the appropriate quantum of damages and profits payable by Konami to Aristocrat. The court also had to consider the costs associated with the litigation, specifically whether Konami’s costs should be reduced due to partial lack of success and the implications of an offer of compromise and pre-judgment interest. The court had to determine the appropriate method for calculating costs, considering both party/party and indemnity bases.

In its decision, the court found that Konami had indeed infringed Aristocrat's patents and ordered Konami to pay substantial damages and an account of profits. The court meticulously calculated the amount of profits and damages due, factoring in pre-judgment interest. In terms of costs, the court ruled that Konami should pay 80% of Aristocrat's costs, reflecting the partial success of Aristocrat. The court emphasised the importance of considering offers of compromise and pre-judgment interest in the context of cost assessments. Consequently, the court ordered Konami to pay specific sums as damages and profits, with extensions granted for compliance and appeal timelines.

The final orders mandated Konami to pay the calculated amounts, extended the time for compliance and appeal, and detailed the cost-sharing arrangement between the parties. This comprehensive ruling addressed both the substantive patent infringement issues and the procedural aspects of cost recovery in complex litigation.