Autodesk Inc & Ors v Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd - [2009] FMCA 14

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUTODESK INC & ORS v GINOS ENGINEERS PTY LTD & ANOR

[2009] FMCA 14

COPYRIGHT – Reproduction of whole or substantial parts of software without licenses and infringement of copyright in contravention of s.36 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – breaches admitted – liability for infringement – quantum of compensatory damages – application of additional damages.

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), ss.36, 115, 116
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.121(3), 131(2)

Adelaide City Corporation v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1928) 40 CLR 481
Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Metro on George Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 575
Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Jain (1990) 18 IPR 663
Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Cheung (1990) 94 ALR 472
Autodesk Inc v Yee (1996) 68 FCR 391
Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187
Falcon v Famous Players Film Company [1926] 2 KB 474
Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd v Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 2156
Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd v Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1051
Kalamazoo (Aust) Pty Ltd v Compact Business Systems Pty Ltd [1990] 1 Qd R 231
Microsoft Corporation v Auschina Polaris Pty Ltd (1996) 71 FCR 231
Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics (2000) 49 IPR 578
Raben Footware Pty Ltd v Polygram Records Inc (1997) 75 FCR 88
SBO Pictures & Ors v Kaos Shops Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] FMCA 82
Sullivan v FNH Investments Pty Ltd t/as Palm Bay Hideaway [2003] FCA 323
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper [2005] FCA 1878
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242
University of New South Wales v Moorehouse & Angus & Robertson (Publishers) Pty Ltd (1975) 133 CLR 1
WEA International Inc v Hanimex Corp Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 274

First Applicant:

AUTODESK INC

Second Applicant:

AUTODESK ASIA PTE LTD

Third Applicant:

AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

First Respondent:

GINOS ENGINEERS PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

ZISIS GINOS

File number:

SYG 2536 of 2007

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

Hearing dates:

28 and 29 November 2007

Date of last submission:

30 March 2008

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

19 January 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicants:

Mr J. Hennessy

Solicitors for the Applicants:

Gilbert + Tobin

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr P. Scragg (solicitor)

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Peter Scragg & Associates

ORDERS

Judgment be entered under s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) against the respondents for the applicants in the sum of $38,012.22.
Judgment be entered under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) against the respondents for the applicants in the sum of $76,000.00.
The respondents are to pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings as agreed or, in the absence of an agreement, as taxed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2536 of 2007

AUTODESK INC

First Applicant

AUTODESK ASIA PTE LTD

Second Applicant

AUTODESK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Third…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Autodesk Inc & Ors v Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] FMCA 14
Decision Date: 19 January 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Autodesk Inc and its affiliates, brought an action against Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd for copyright infringement. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought relief for the unauthorised use of their copyrighted computer software in the respondents' business operations.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondents had infringed the applicants' copyright by using their software without permission. The court had to consider the nature of the software, the terms under which it was licensed, and whether the respondents had breached those terms. Another issue was the quantification of damages, including both the loss suffered by the applicants and the profits gained by the respondents from the infringement.

The court found that the respondents had indeed infringed the applicants' copyright by using the software without a valid license. The court examined the licensing agreements and determined that the respondents had exceeded the authorised use of the software. The court also assessed the loss suffered by the applicants and the profits gained by the respondents, arriving at the amounts specified in the orders. The court emphasised the importance of respecting intellectual property rights and the consequences of failing to do so.

In conclusion, the court ordered the respondents to pay damages to the applicants and their legal costs. The specific amounts were determined based on the evidence presented and the applicable sections of the Copyright Act. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to copyright holders and the need for adherence to licensing agreements.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment be entered under s.115(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) against the respondents for the applicants in the sum of $38,012.22.

Judgment be entered under s.115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) against the respondents for the applicants in the sum of $76,000.00.

The respondents are to pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings as agreed or, in the absence of an agreement, as taxed.

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.