Autodesk Inc & Anor v Dyason

Case [1993] HCATrans 88


IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M42 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

AUTODESK INC. and AUTODESK

AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Appellants

and

MARTIN PATRICK DYASON,
CHRISTINE DYASON and PETER

VINCENT KELLY

Respondents

Order

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J
DEANE J

DAWSON J

Autodesk(4) 1 21/4/93

TOOHEY J

GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 1993, AT 10.16 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MASON CJ: Judgment in this matter was handed down on

12 February 1992, allowing the appeal.

Subsequently, the parties requested more specific orders but, before further orders were made, the

respondents sought to have the judgment and orders

of this Court vacated. Judgment in that

application was handed down on 3 March 1993,

dismissing the application and directing the

parties to bring in minutes of order in accordance

with the judgment in Autodesk Inc. v. Dyason {No.1]

(1992) 173 C.L.R. 330. The parties duly provided

the Court with minutes of order with which, save

for one part of the order, they were in agreement.

The Court now makes the following orders.

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders 1, 3 and 4 of the Full Court of the

Federal Court set aside and in lieu thereof order

that:

(1) order 1 of Northrop J. dated 15 September

1989 be varied by ordering that:

(a) Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine

Dyason and Peter Vincent Kelly, and

each of them, whether by themselves,

their servants, agents or howsoever

otherwise, be restrained from -

(i) reproducing in any material

form the whole, or a

substantial part, of the

computer program known as

"AutoCAD";

(ii)  selling or letting for hire, or

by way of trade, offering, or

exposing for sale or hire, any

article, being a reproduction

of the whole, or a substantial

part, of the said computer
program.
( b) Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine
Dyason and Peter Vincent Kelly, and
each of them, whether by themselves,
their servants, agents or howsoever
otherwise, be restrained from
reproducing in any material form the
whole, or a substantial part, of the
127-bit series look-up table in the
said computer program and, more
particularly, in that part of the
computer program known as "Widget
C II.
Autodesk(4) 2 21/4/93

(2) the appeal to the Full Court of the

Federal Court by Martin Patrick Dyason,

Christine Dyason and Peter Vincent Kelly

be otherwise dismissed with costs.

Remit the matter to the Federal Court of

Australia, Victoria District Registry, for a directions hearing on a date to be fixed for

directions as to its further conduct.

AT 10.19 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Autodesk(4) 21/4/93
Details
AGLC
Autodesk Inc & Anor v Dyason [1993] HCATrans 88
Case
[1993] HCATrans 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Autodesk Inc. and Autodesk concerning a dispute with Martin Patrick Dyason, Christine Dyason, and Peter Vincent Kelly. The proceedings involved an application to vacate a previous judgment and orders of the High Court, which had allowed the appeal. Following the dismissal of the application to vacate, the parties submitted minutes of order for the Court's consideration.

The central legal issue before the High Court was to determine the precise terms of the orders to be made following its earlier decision allowing the appeal. This involved specifying the nature of the injunctions to be granted against the respondents, particularly concerning the reproduction and sale of a computer program and a specific component thereof known as the "127-bit series look-up table" within "Widget C II".

The High Court's reasoning, as indicated by the orders made, was to give effect to its prior judgment of 12 February 1992. The Court varied an earlier order of Northrop J. by imposing restraints on the respondents, prohibiting them from reproducing substantial parts of the computer program and from selling or offering for sale any reproduction of the whole or a substantial part of it. Furthermore, the respondents were restrained from reproducing the "127-bit series look-up table" and specifically that part of the program known as "Widget C II". The appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was otherwise dismissed with costs, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Court for further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.