Avel Pty Ltd v Wells, J

Case [1992] FCA 461


Re: AVEL PTY. LIMITED; CAPCOM CO. LIMITED and TAD CORPORATION LIMITED
And: JONATHAN WELLS
No. G816 of 1991
FED No. 461
Intellectual Property
(1992) AIPC 90-901
(1992) 108 ALR 97
(1992) 23 IPR 353

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Sheppard(1), Lee(1) and Hill(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS

Intellectual Property - copyright - parallel importation - circuit layouts - importation of eligible layouts for video games - eligible layouts containing substantial parts of computer programs, the copyright in which was owned by one or other of the appellants - whether importation of such eligible layouts constituted an infringment of appellants' copyright in computer programs.

Circuit Layouts Act 1989, ss. 5, 8, 11, 16, 17, 19 and 24.

Copyright Act 1968, ss. 37 and 38.

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 30:6:1992

Counsel and Solicitors for Applicant: D.F. Jackson QC with R.J. Webb

instructed by Kemp, Strang and Chippindall

Counsel and Solicitors for Respondent: D.K. Catterns with J.V. Nicholas
for Respondent: instructed by Corrs Chambers

Westgarth
ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:-

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay to the respondent his costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

The appellants, Avel Pty Limited ("Avel"), Capcom Co Limited ("Capcom") and Tad Corporation Limited ("Tad") are the applicants in proceedings against the respondent, Mr Jonathan Wells ("Mr Wells") in which they sought, inter alia, an injunction against Mr Wells, restraining him, inter alia, from importing, selling or offering for sale certain electronic video games in kit form. The relevant games are referred to as "Carrier Airwing", "Final Fight", "Street Fighter II" and "Blood Brothers". Each of the game kits comprises a printed circuit board ("PCB"), into which are plugged certain memory storage devices, an operator's manual and certain stickers.

  1. In relation to the game kits for the first three games, Capcom is the owner pursuant to the Copyright Act 1968 ("the Copyright Act") of copyright in three literary works being:

(a) the computer programmes contained in the memory storage devices in integrated circuit form which are fitted to the PCBs;

(b) the written materials contained in the operator's manuals included in the kit; and

(c) the written materials included on stickers designed to be placed on the exterior of the video game cabinet into which the PCB is installed for use.
  1. Capcom is also the owner, pursuant to the Copyright Act, of copyright in artistic works being the drawings and diagrams contained in the operator manuals included in the game kits, and the drawings and diagrams reproduced on the stickers.

  2. In respect of the Blood Brothers game kit, Tad is the owner, nter alia, of the copyright in literary works being the computer programmes contained in the memory storage devices in integrated circuit form fitted to the PCBs. Tad is also the owner of copyright in the written materials contained in the operator's manuals, the written materials included on stickers…

Continue reading Avel Pty Ltd v Wells, J

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Avel Pty Ltd v Wells, J [1992] FCA 461
Case
[1992] FCA 461
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Avel Pty Ltd and Avel Pty Ltd, trading as Avel, were the appellants in this case against Wells, J, the respondent. The dispute arose from the importation of circuit layouts for video games by the respondent, which were alleged to infringe the copyright of the appellants in certain computer programs. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the importation of the circuit layouts constituted an infringement of the appellants' copyright in the computer programs, and if so, whether the importation of such eligible layouts was permissible under Australian copyright law. The court had to consider the extent to which the layout of a circuit could be protected by copyright and whether such protection extended to the importation of layouts that were substantially identical to those created by the appellants.

The court held that the importation of the circuit layouts did not constitute an infringement of the appellants' copyright in the computer programs. The court found that while the layout of a circuit could be protected by copyright, this protection did not extend to the importation of layouts that were substantially identical to those created by the appellants. The court held that the copyright in the computer programs did not extend to the layout of the circuits, and therefore, the importation of such layouts did not infringe the appellants' copyright. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:-

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay to the respondent his costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.