Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd v Stena Rederi Aktiebolag

Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd (Austal) was sued by Stena Rederi Aktiebolag (Stena) for infringement of a patent. The suit was brought in the Federal Court of Australia. Stena's claim was that the hull forms of three types of vessels manufactured, sold, or promoted by Austal infringed its patent. Austal sought to revoke the patent for alleged invalidity, lack of novelty, lack of an inventive step, and/or failure to comply with the requirement in s 40(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) that the claim be clear. The primary judge found that the Austal 94 design infringed the patent and dismissed the cross-claim, holding that the patent was valid in all respects. The court certified that the validity of claims 1 to 9 of the patent had been successfully questioned in these proceedings. The court made orders restraining the respondents from infringing the patent and dismissed the respondents’ cross-claim.

The issues before the court were whether the hull forms of three types of vessel manufactured, sold, or promoted by Austal infringed the patent and whether the patent was valid. The court found that the Austal 94 design infringed the patent and that the patent was valid. The court found that the Austal 94 hull form was substantially similar to the invention claimed in the patent and that the differences between the two hull forms were not sufficient to avoid infringement. The court found that the patent was valid in all respects.

The court held that the Austal 94 design infringed the patent and that the patent was valid. The court found that the Austal 94 hull form was substantially similar to the invention claimed in the patent and that the differences between the two hull forms were not sufficient to avoid infringement. The court found that the patent was valid in all respects. The court made orders restraining the respondents from infringing the patent and dismissed the respondents’ cross-claim. The court certified that the validity of claims 1 to 9 of the patent had been successfully questioned in these proceedings. The court noted that the parties agreed that the question of costs be determined on the papers.

The orders of the court were that the respondents were restrained from infringing the patent and that the respondents’ cross-claim was dismissed. The court certified that the validity of claims 1 to 9 of the patent had been successfully questioned in these proceedings. The court noted that the parties agreed that the question of costs be determined on the papers. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the motion to be taxed on an indemnity basis.