C21 Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Hou (No 5)

[2025] FedCFamC2G 479

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

C21 Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Hou (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC2G 479

File number(s):

SYG 2055 of 2021

Judgment of:

JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

Date of judgment:

4 April 2025

Catchwords:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – copyright – whether copyright of which the applicant employer is the owner subsists in data contained in files (RAMA Keycap template files) which when accessed by a computer program generates 2D and 3D representations of keycap design and keycap collaboration templates – copyright subsists - whether information the employee downloaded from the employer’s server to a device or devices the employee controlled included the RAMA Keycap template files – whether having downloaded the RAMA Keycap template files the employee infringed copyright that subsists in the RAMA Keycap templates – employee infringed employer’s copyright in the RAMA Keycap templates - whether the employee reproduced a substantial part of the RAMA Keycap design templates to create keycap design templates which the employee on her own behalf and as the controller of a company used to create keycap design templates which in turn the employee and the company used to manufacture and sell artisan keycaps in competition with the employer – employee and company reproduced a substantial part of the RAMA Keycap design templates and for that reason infringed the employer’s copyright in the RAMA Keycap design templates. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – breach of confidence – where the employee downloads files from the applicant employer’s server which the employer alleges is confidential to the employer – whether the employer has identified the information the employee downloaded which the employer alleges is confidential – whether the information the employer has identified is confidential – employee downloaded information that is confidential to the employer – whether the employee’s downloading of the information was a breach of confidence – to the extent the information the employee downloaded included the RAMA template files whether the employee and through the company the employee established and controlled, misused the RAMA template files – the employee and through her the company misused the confidential information contained in the RAMA Keycap design template files to manufacture artisan templates which the company sold in competition with the employer.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – whether the employee breached terms of her employment contract, fiduciary duties, and statutory duties imposed by s 182(1) and s 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by downloading information that included the RAMA Keycap template files that were confidential to the employer for the purpose of establishing a competing business to the business of the employer and using that information to manufacture artisan keycaps which a company the employee established and controlled sold in competition with the employer – the employee breached her employment contract and the fiduciary and statutory duties – whether the company established by the employee to undertake the competing business knowingly assisted the employee in breaching her fiduciary duties and was involved in the employee’s contraventions of her statutory duties – the company knowingly assisted in the employee’s breaches of her fiduciary duties and was involved in the employee’s breaches of statutory duty.

Legislation:

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 10, 13, 14, 22, 31(a), 32, 35, 36, 115(1),(4)

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 58AA(1), 79, 182, 183, 1317E, 1317H

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140(1)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 10, 134, 141, 230

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 30.51, 30.55, Div 30.5

Cases cited:

ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63

Albert (Prince) v. Strange (1849) I Mac. & G. 25, 41 E.R. 1171

Allen v Tobias (1958) 98 CLR 367

Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd (1971) 20 FLR 481

Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Limited v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Limited [2018] HCA 43

Ansell Rubber Co Pty Ltd v Allied Rubber Industries Pty Ltd [1967] VicRp 7; (1967) VR 37

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2017] FCAFC 113

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yellow Page Marketing BV (No 2) [2011] FCA 352

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 247 CLR 345

Blatch v Archer [1774] EngR 2; (1774) 1 Cowper 63; 98 ER 969

Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Chew v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 626

Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1371

Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 50; (1968) 122 CLR 25

Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc [1986] HCA 19

Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell & Anor (2000) 75 ALJR 312

Consul Development Pty Ltd v D.P.C. Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373

Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corporation Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 54; (1993) 179 CLR 101

Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] FCA 655; (1991) 33 FCR 397

Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172

Digital Pulse Pty Ltd v Harris [2002] NSWSC 33

Donnola v Silverleaf Constructions Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 577

Facton Ltd v Rifai Fashions Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 9

Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587

Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 6

G v H [1994] HCA 48; (1994) 181 CLR 387

Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 10

Henderson v Queensland [2014] HCA 52

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation & Ors (1984) 156 CLR 41

IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14

In the matter of Colorado Products Pty Ltd (in prov liq) [2014] NSWSC 789

IPC Global Pty Ltd v Pavetest Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1332

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Korolak v Campbell (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 1222

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11

Labelmakers Group Pty Ltd v LL Force Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 512

Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273

Laing O’Rourke Australia Management Services Pty Ltd v Haley [2024] FCA 1323

Leplastrier & Co Ltd v Armstrong-Holland Ltd [1926] NSWStRp 57; (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 585

Lumen Australia Pty Ltd v Frontline Australasia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1807

Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd v Campbell [2009] NSWSC 987

Mergenthaler Linotype Co v Intertype Co Ltd (1926) 43 RPC 381

Milankov Designs &Project Management Pty Ltd v Di Latte [2018] WASC 14

Norm Engineering v Digga Australia [2007] FCA 761

Ocular Sciences v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289

Old v Hodgkinson; Old v McInnes [2004] NSWSC 1202

Optus Networks Pty Ltd (ACN 008 570 330) v Telstra Corporation Ltd (ACN 051 775 556) [2010] FCAFC 21

Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191

Peter Pan Manufacturing Corporation v Corsets Silhouette Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 96

Pilmer v The Duke Group Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 165

Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164

Research in Motion Ltd v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 320

Robb v Green [1895] 2 QB 1

Robb v Green [1895] 2 QB 315

Russo v Aiello [2003] HCA 53

R v Byrnes (1995) 183 CLR 501

Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd c Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd (1948) 65 RPC 203

Sands & McDougall Pty Ltd v Robinson [1917] HCA 14; (1917) 23 CLR 49

SW Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems [1985] HCA 59; (1985) 159 CLR 466

Tamawood Limited v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 44

The Ophelia [1916] 2 A.C. 206

Timber Engineering Co Pty Ltd v Anderson [1980] 2 NSWLR 488

Town and Country Property Management Services Pty Ltd and Anor v Kaltoum and Ors [2002] NSWSC 166

V-Flow Pty Limited v Holyoake Industries (Vic) Pty Limited [2013] FCAFC 16

Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45; (1937) 58 CLR 479

Warman International Ltd v Dwyer [1995] HCA 18; (1995) 182 CLR 544

W Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems [1985] HCA 59

Division:

General

Number of paragraphs:

467

Date of hearing:

15, 16, 17, 18, 19 May 2023 and 11, 12, 13 September 2023

Place:

Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr C McMeniman

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Gilbert + Tobin

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr L Merrick and Mr A Middleton

Solicitor for the Respondents:

MGA Lawyers

ORDERS

SYG 2055 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

C21 PTY LTD ATF THE RAMADAN FAMILY TRUST (ABN 65 592 475 152)

Applicant

AND:

KATE HOU

First Respondent

HIBI DESIGN PTY LTD (ACN 654 588 717)

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
DATE OF ORDER:	4 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Subject to order 2, pursuant to s 230(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021(Cth), until further order of the Court, or the agreement of the parties, the reasons for judgment (Reasons) in relation to which these orders are made be published only to the legal representatives of the parties.

2.Order 1 does not prevent the legal representatives of the parties from communicating to their respective clients any part of, or the effect of any part of the Reasons, provided they do so in conformity with the orders for confidentiality the Court has made, and in conformity with confidentiality undertakings the parties’ legal representatives have given to the Court or inter partes.

3.The proceeding be listed at 9.30 am on 2 May 2025, or at such other time and date convenient to the parties and the Court, for submissions about the orders that should be made to give effect to the Reasons, and what, if any, information should be redacted from the Reasons or anonymised before the Reasons may be published to the public.

4.There be liberty to apply on such notice as the circumstances warrant.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

5.Order 1 is made because it is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, it being the case that, during the hearing to which the Reasons relate, confidentiality orders were made in relation to commercially sensitive information; and the Reasons in their current form may refer to evidence which is the subject of such confidentiality orders.

Note: The redactions to paragraphs 192, 204(c), 230, and 235 of the reasons for judgment on the basis of which the above orders were pronounced, have been made pursuant to a suppression order made on 30 May 2025.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION	[1]
CLAIMS AND DEFENCES	[8]
PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS ARISING	[10]
APPROACH	[11]
BLATCH V ARCHER	[14]
BACKGROUND	[22]
Keycaps	[22]
The market for artisan keycaps	[23]
Keycap profiles	[25]
Mr Ramadan and the beginning of the RAMA Keycap Business	[28]
Ms Hou and her initial involvement with the RAMA Keycap Business	[31]
RAMA takes over RAMA Keycap Business	[34]
RWH Pty Ltd	[35]
The RAMA Keycaps Business	[36]
Regular course of RAMA Keycap Business	[39]
CREATION OF RAMA KEYCAP DESIGN TEMPLATES	[40]
The SolidWorks software	[41]
The Keycap Design templates	[45]
Keycap top and its creation	[46]
RAMA Stem template and its creation	[48]
Combining the RAMA Stem template and keycap top elements	[51]
CREATION OF RAMA KEYCAP COLLABORATION TEMPLATES	[54]
CLASSES OF AND ACCESS TO RAMA DATA	[57]
General	[57]
RAMA Keycap Design template files	[64]
Creation and contents of RAMA Stem template files	[65]
Creation and contents of the RAMA Cherry Keycap template file	[67]
The RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates	[69]
Creation and contents of Soya Collaboration file	[72]
MS HOU’S EMPLOYMENT WITH RAMA	[74]
MS HOU’S CONDUCT WHILE AN EMPLOYEE AFTER SHE FORMED THE INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A COMPETING BUSINESS	[79]
Ceasing work on collaborations	[80]
6 August 2021 – cessation of work for GMK Power Chord collaboration	[80]
16 August 2021 – cessation of work for collaborator Elvis Xiao (Winter Breath)	[81]
18 August 2021 – cessation of work for GMK Chaos Theory	[82]
25 August 2021 – cessation of work for GMK Bordeaux Collaboration	[83]
27 August 2021 – cessation of work GMK fenglisu	[84]
2 September 2021 – cessation of work for collaboration with GMK NTD	[85]
2 September 2021 – cessation of work for collaboration GMK Zen Pond	[86]
Ms Hou’s evidence	[87]
Other communications with potential collaborators	[88]
Communicating with vendors and designers	[89]
Mr Garrett Moore	[90]
22 August 2021	[91]
23 August 2021	[92]
24 August 2021	[93]
25 August 2021	[94]
Mr Mike Sickler	[96]
23 August 2021	[96]
27 August 2021	[97]
28 August 2021	[98]
Zambo	[102]
25 August 2021	[102]
22 September 2021	[103]
Mr Rhys Graham	[104]
26 August 2021	[104]
1 September 2021	[105]
Mr Andrew Cannon	[106]
26 August 2021	[106]
2 September 2021	[108]
Downloading of RAMA information	[109]
20 August 2021 download from NAS servers	[110]
21 August 2021 – attempted download	[115]
22 August 2021	[118]
24 August 2021	[123]
15 September 2021- Second Google takeout	[125]
Why did Ms Hou download the RAMA Downloaded Information?	[127]
Finding	[135]
The information Ms Hou downloaded, and what happened to it	[136]
MGA’s letter dated 7 December 2021	[137]
First McKemmish Report	[141]
Mr Ramadan’s review of the Search Results Excel	[145]
STEM files	[145]
Texture files	[148]
Ms Dunn’s review of the texture files	[151]
Second McKemmish Report	[152]
Uploading of Downloaded RAMA Information to Cloud storage facilities	[158]
Ms Hou’s evidence	[161]
EVENTS AFTER 27 SEPTEMBER 2021	[162]
27 September 2021 – commencement of HIBI website and social media	[163]
Keycap Collaborations posted in HIBI webpage and social media	[164]
24 October 2021 – Ms Hou reformats Razer Laptop	[167]
Evidence	[167]
Findings	[176]
Consequence of finding	[181]
THE CREATION OF HIBI KEYCAP DESIGN AND COLLABORATION TEMPLATES	[185]
The HIBI Keycap Business	[185]
HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template	[186]
The second Hou affidavit	[187]
The Second Simpson Report	[204]
The Rodezno Report	[213]
HIBI R4 Keycap template	[219]
HIBI Enter Keycap template	[221]
HIBI DCS template file	[223]
HIBI SA R1 template	[229]
HIBI SA R3 template	[233]
HIBI DSA template	[237]
HIBI KAT template	[241]
HIBI KAM template	[244]
HIBI “one-off” keycap	[248]
HIBI Chaos Theory Collaboration template	[249]
HIBI Profiles	[251]
Changes in HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template	[253]
Finding	[255]
CLAIM BASED ON COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT	[258]
The pleadings	[258]
The statement of claim	[258]
Defence	[259]
Issues	[260]
Elements of a cause of action for copyright infringement	[261]
Subject matter	[263]
Rights comprised in “copyright”	[268]
The owner of copyright in a work	[270]
Action for infringement of copyright	[271]
Has RAMA established its case based on infringement of copyright?	[276]
Subsistence and ownership of copyright	[276]
Deed of Assignment	[280]
Infringement	[286]
Did Ms Hou download the RAMA keycap design and collaboration templates?	[287]
Did the respondents further reproduce all or a substantial part of the keycap design and collaboration templates?	[291]
Conclusion	[298]
Basis of liability	[304]
CLAIMS BASED ON MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION	[306]
Elements of cause of action based on breach of confidence	[306]
The parties’ cases	[313]
RAMA’s case	[313]
The respondents’ case	[318]
Issues	[320]
Identification and proof of the information RAMA claims is confidential	[321]
Has RAMA proved that the information it has identified is confidential?	[325]
Information comprised in the RAMA Keycap Design and Collaboration template Files	[325]
Information contained in the RAMA non-template files Ms Hou downloaded	[329]
Has RAMA proved that the respondents used the confidential information?	[333]
Data contained in the RAMA Keycap Design and Collaboration Template Files	[333]
Information contained in the RAMA non-template files	[334]
Conclusion	[335]
Claims for breach of confidence against HIBI	[336]
CLAIMS BASED ON BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY	[339]
RAMA’s case	[339]
The respondents’ case	[341]
Some principles	[343]
Determination	[347]
CLAIMS BASED ON SS 182 AND 183 OF THE CORPORATIONS ACT	[358]
Provisions, jurisdiction, and principles	[359]
Determination	[369]
HIBI’s liability	[374]
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS	[378]
PECUNIARY REMEDIES	[379]
Claim for account of profit	[380]
Some principles	[380]
Evidence	[401]
RAMA’s evidence	[401]
The respondents’ evidence – Ms Hou	[406]
The respondents’ evidence -- Ms Bowman	[412]
Ms Davitt’s report in reply	[414]
Cross-examination of experts	[417]
Parties’ submissions	[425]
Determination	[427]
The wrongful conduct	[429]
Benefits arising from the unlawful conduct	[432]
Costs	[437]
Calculation of profit for Period 1 and Period 2	[444]
Profits after Period 2	[445]
Who is liable to account for the profits?	[446]
Conclusion	[449]
Damages	[450]
Additional damages under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act	[453]
Compensation order under s 1317H(2) of the Corporations Act	[454]
NON-PECUNIARY REMEDIES	[456]
Declarations	[456]
Injunctions	[460]
Delivery up and destruction	[461]
DISPOSITION	[465]
SCHEDULE A	[]
SCHEDULE B – DRAFT ORDERS	[]

INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant (RAMA) conducts a number of businesses, one of which (RAMA Keycap Business) consists of the design, manufacture, and sale of custom-made “keycaps” (artisan keycaps). “Keycaps” are the parts of a “mechanical keyboard” (an object I will describe later) with which a user’s fingers connect when typing. Mr Ramadan, a director of RAMA, started the RAMA Keycap Business in 2016; and he conducted the business on his own account until around 18 June 2018, when RAMA acquired it.

2. Each artisan keycap RAMA sells is manufactured to the specifications contained in a file that has had imported to it a template RAMA created in relation to that artisan keycap (RAMA Keycap Collaboration template). RAMA creates the RAMA Keycap Collaboration template by using one of a number of keycap design templates (RAMA Keycap Design templates). Mr Ramadan created the RAMA Keycap Design templates, and Mr Ramadan and the first respondent, Ms Hou, each created RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates; and they did so by using a three-dimensional (3D) design software program known as “SolidWorks” (SolidWorks software).

1. In around February 2017 Ms Hou began to assist Mr Ramadan in the RAMA Keycap Business. At that time Mr Ramadan and Ms Hou were in a personal relationship and lived together. (They continued to do so until around 30 May 2021.) Ms Hou assisted Mr Ramadan without pay until about 23 March 2020, when RAMA employed Ms Hou to perform the functions I describe later in these reasons. Ms Hou remained an employee of RAMA until 27 September 2021 when, initially by herself and, from 18 October 2021, through the second respondent (HIBI), Ms Hou commenced an artisan keycap business (HIBI Keycap Business) in competition with RAMA.

2. On 20 August, 22 August, and 15 September 2021, while an employee of RAMA, and by which times Ms Hou had resolved to commence the HIBI Keycap Business in competition with RAMA, Ms Hou downloaded to a device or devices she controlled information (Downloaded RAMA Information) that was stored on computers to which only persons whom RAMA authorised had access. RAMA alleges that the information Ms Hou downloaded included computer files that contained data which, when accessed by a computer program or programs, revealed images of the RAMA Keycap Design templates (RAMA Keycap Design template files), the RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates (RAMA Keycap Collaboration template files), and a stem template (RAMA Stem template files); and other visual and non-visual information associated with the creation of these templates, including dimensions. The Downloaded RAMA Information also included folders containing work files, records of communications using a platform known as “Slack”, and information contained in folders that had been generated in the course of the RAMA Keycap Business by the use of applications such as “Calendar”, “Mail”, “Activity”, “Chrome”, and “Keep”.

3. On 22 October 2021 RAMA’s lawyers (GT) sent to Ms Hou by email a letter in which GT alleged, among other things, that Ms Hou had unlawfully downloaded the Downloaded RAMA Information; and demanded that Ms Hou deliver to GT’s office “copies (including electronic copies) of any information, content, or material belonging to” RAMA “including the RAMA WORKS IP by no later than 27 October 2021”.

4. By letter dated 27 October 2021 Ms Hou’s lawyers said Ms Hou would not be able to respond to GT’s letter until “late next week”, being the week commencing on 1 November 2021; and that Ms Hou expected to provide a substantive response by close of business on 5 November 2021. By 27 October 2021, however, without notice to GT or RAMA, Ms Hou had “reformatted” the laptop to which she says she had downloaded the Downloaded RAMA Information. The consequence of Ms Hou’s “reformatting” her laptop is that Ms Hou deleted from her laptop the Downloaded RAMA Information she had downloaded to that laptop. As will be shown later, however, Ms Hou had transferred, downloaded, or uploaded to other devices she controlled, or to which she had access, at least some of the Downloaded RAMA Information.

5. By letter dated 29 October 2021 GT agreed to allow Ms Hou until 5 November 2021 to respond to its letter dated 27 October 2021, but Ms Hou did not respond. That led RAMA to commence this proceeding by applying for injunctive and other relief against Ms Hou and HIBI (respondents).

   CLAIMS AND DEFENCES

6. In these circumstances RAMA makes the following claims against the respondents.

   (a)The Downloaded RAMA Information included the RAMA Keycap Design template files, the RAMA Stem template files, and the RAMA Keycap Collaboration template files (collectively RAMA Keycap template files), each of which constitutes “original works” for the purposes of s 32 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act), and in each of which there subsists copyright of which RAMA is the owner. RAMA claims the copyright in these works has been infringed in two ways; first, by Ms Hou downloading the RAMA Keycap template files; and second, by Ms Hou substantially reproducing the RAMA Keycap Design template files and using them to create her own keycap design and collaboration templates which, in turn, she used to arrange for the manufacture of keycaps (HIBI Keycaps) which she or HIBI sold in competition with RAMA.

   (b)The RAMA Keycap template files, and all the other Downloaded RAMA Information, constitute information that is confidential to RAMA; Ms Hou and HIBI downloaded the information to use it for the purposes of the HIBI Keycap Business, and Ms Hou did use at least some of the information for the purpose of that business. The information RAMA claims is confidential to it includes the RAMA Keycap template files, and files that contain pricing and sales data, contracts with collaborators, and marketing information that had not been made available to the public. RAMA claims that, by engaging in this conduct, Ms Hou breached the duty of confidence she owed RAMA in relation to this information, and Ms Hou also breached terms of her contract of employment, fiduciary duties she, as a senior employee, owed to RAMA, and the statutory duties s 182(1) and s 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) imposed on Ms Hou.

   (c)While an employee of RAMA, Ms Hou solicited “collaborators” who had been dealing with RAMA to collaborate with her, once her association with RAMA were to cease (I will explain the meaning of “collaborators” later in these reasons); Ms Hou deferred securing collaborations with artists until after Ms Hou ceased her association with RAMA; Ms Hou was developing her capacity to copy RAMA Keycap template files for use in the HIBI Keycap Business; and Ms Hou engaged in significant work to set up her own business when she was obliged to work for RAMA. RAMA claims that, by engaging in this conduct, Ms Hou breached fiduciary duties she, as a senior employee, owed to RAMA, and breached ss 182(1) and s 183(1) of the Corporations Act.

7. The respondents answer these claims as follows:

   (a)The respondents acknowledge that, on 22 August 2021 and 15 September 2021, Ms Hou downloaded from RAMA’s server at least some of the Downloaded RAMA Information to a device she controlled. The respondents submit, however, that Ms Hou did so solely for the purpose of retrieving information that was personal to her that was located on RAMA’s server; and that she did not download the Downloaded RAMA Information for the purpose of using the information in the HIBI Keycap Business, and she did not use any of the information for that or for any other purpose.

   (b)The respondents accept that, to the extent RAMA establishes that the Downloaded RAMA Information included original works in which copyright subsists, and of which RAMA is the owner, her downloading the information constituted an infringement of that copyright. The respondents, however, submit that RAMA is unable to prove that the Downloaded RAMA Information included any of the RAMA Keycap template files; and the respondents have otherwise put in issue the questions of subsistence of copyright in, and authorship and ownership of, the RAMA Keycap template files. Further, the respondents contend that RAMA is unable to prove Ms Hou used any of the RAMA Keycap template files for the purpose of designing any HIBI Keycaps or other products; and contend that Ms Hou designed the HIBI Keycaps by her own labours, not by reproducing information contained in any RAMA Keycap template files or any other information that formed part of the Downloaded RAMA Information.

   (c)The respondents also accept that, while Ms Hou was employed by RAMA, she had access to the information RAMA claims to be confidential to it. The respondents contend, however, that RAMA has not identified what it alleges is the confidential information RAMA alleges Ms Hou misused; and, to the extent it has done so, RAMA has not established that the information is confidential.

   (d)The respondents contend that the evidence does not establish that Ms Hou sought to appropriate for herself or for HIBI the RAMA Keycap Business.

   PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS ARISING

8. From this statement of the parties’ cases, three broad questions or sets of questions arise.

   (a)The first relates to RAMA’s claim for copyright infringement; and here there are a number of questions. The first is whether copyright subsists in the RAMA templates files and, if so, whether RAMA is the owner of the copyright. The second question is, assuming copyright subsists in the RAMA Keycap template files, whether the Downloaded RAMA Information included any RAMA Keycap template files, and if so, which of those template files. The third question arises if the first and second questions are answered in the affirmative, and that is whether Ms Hou has done any act comprised in the copyright that subsists in the RAMA Keycap template files. More understandably, the question is whether Ms Hou reproduced a substantial part of any of the RAMA Keycap template files. The determination of that question turns in part on the assessment of expert evidence given by industrial designers who are familiar with the workings of the SolidWorks software.

   (b)The second set of questions are whether RAMA is able to prove that any part of the Downloaded RAMA Information constituted information that was confidential to RAMA and, if so, whether Ms Hou misused any of it.

   (c)The third set of questions are whether, during her employment, Ms Hou took actions preparatory to her establishing and commencing the HIBI Keycap Business which constituted a breach of her employment contract, or a breach of fiduciary duties she owed RAMA, or a breach of s 182(1) or s 183(1) of the Corporations Act.

   APPROACH

9. I will begin by briefly describing the principles that are engaged where a party to litigation does not adduce evidence it is reasonable to suppose it is within the power of the party to adduce and which, if adduced, might shed light on the determination of a fact in issue. This set of principles is often described as the rule in Blatch v Archer.[1] It will be necessary to refer to these principles because Ms Hou has not given or otherwise adduced evidence about matters it is reasonable to suppose are within her power to give and which, if given, might have shed light on a number of issues of fact that arise on RAMA’s claims. In particular:

   (a)although Ms Hou says she downloaded the Downloaded RAMA Information for the purpose of obtaining documents that were personal to her and documents she says it was necessary for her to have to perform her duties as an employee of RAMA, Ms Hou does not identify in other than conclusory terms the personal files or the work files she says she intended to obtain by downloading the Downloaded RAMA Information;

   (b)although Ms Hou admits she downloaded the Downloaded RAMA Information, she contends that RAMA has not proved that the information she downloaded included any RAMA Keycap template files; but Ms Hou does not give evidence which identifies the information she downloaded; and

   (c)although Ms Hou gives evidence of the steps she took to create the HIBI Keycaps, and the evidence reveals that the HIBI and RAMA Keycap Design templates share identical or near identical dimensions, Ms Hou gives no evidence about the source of the dimensions she used to create the HIBI Keycaps.

   [1] Blatch v Archer [1774] EngR 2; (1774) 1 Cowper 63; 98 ER 969

10. After I describe the principles associated with Blatch v Archer, I propose to set out the evidence in relation to the following subjects:

    (a)what “keycaps” are; the notion of “keycap profiles”; the market for keycaps; the origins and usual course of the RAMA Keycap Business; and Ms Hou’s involvement in that business;

    (b)the nature of the SolidWorks software;

    (c)the processes by which Mr Ramadan designed and created the RAMA Keycap Design templates, and the processes by which he and Ms Hou designed and created the RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates;

    (d)the computer filing system RAMA maintained;

    (e)RAMA’s employment of Ms Hou, and the duties RAMA engaged her to perform;

    (f)the circumstances in which Ms Hou downloaded the Downloaded RAMA Information, the purposes for which Ms Hou downloaded the information, and what has become of the Downloaded RAMA Information;

    (g)the conduct Ms Hou engaged in while an employee of RAMA from the time she had resolved to resign from RAMA and establish a competing keycap business; and

    (h)the design and creation of the HIBI Keycaps design templates.

11. In the course of setting out this evidence I will also be making a number of findings of fact. Any unqualified statement of fact should be taken to reflect a finding of the fact stated, unless the context suggests otherwise. I will then consider the principal questions that arise on RAMA’s claims.

    BLATCH V ARCHER

12. The principles associated with Blatch v Archer are based on the maxim Lord Mansfield expressed in that case, namely, that “all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted”.[2] The maxim is “a fundamental precept of the adversarial system of justice, and is treated as axiomatic in the day to day operations of courts”. [3]

    [2] Blatch v Archer [1774] EngR 2; (1774) 1 Cowp 63 at page 65; 98 ER 969 at page 970

    [3] Russo v Aiello [2003] HCA 53, at [11] (Gleeson CJ). See also Henderson v Queensland [2014] HCA 52, at [91] (Gageler J). The principle was stated in more modern form by Brennan and McHugh JJ in G v H [1994] HCA 48, at [8]; (1994) 181 CLR 387, at pages 391-392: “[W]hen a court is deciding whether a party on whom rests the burden of proving an issue on the balance of probabilities has discharged that burden, regard must be had to that party’s ability to adduce evidence relevant to the issue and any failure on the part of the other party to adduce available evidence in response.”

13. The principles the courts have developed on the basis of Lord Mansfield’s maxim in Blatch v Archer were stated by Glass JA in Payne v Parker (emphasis added):[4]

    In Blatch v. Archer Lord Mansfield C.J. said: “It is certainly a maxim that all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted. . . . From these various sources it is possible, I believe, to deduce the following propositions:

    (1) The rule is a principle of the law of evidence whereby a particular form of reasoning is authorized.

    (2) The reasoning which is permissible involves the treatment of a failure to adduce evidence as a reason for increasing the weight of the proofs of the opposite party or reducing the weight of the proofs of the party in default: O’Donnell v. Reichard (36). The principle may be invoked for a deficiency in the evidence either of a party bearing the legal onus of proving an issue, or of a party bearing the evidentiary burden only (emphasis added): Ibid. (37); Steele v. Mirror Newspapers Ltd. (38) If the failure is of the latter kind, the direct evidence of the party with the onus of proof can be more readily accepted, and inferences in his favour may be more confidently drawn: Jones v. Dunkel (39).^. If the failure is of the former kind, a consonant formulation would be that the direct evidence of the party carrying the onus may be more readily rejected, and the inferences for which he contends may be treated with greater reserve. The default “brings a great slur on his cause”: Ward v. Apprice (40).

    (3) The failure to call a particular witness is merely one instance of evidentiary deficiency which brings the principle into operation. Other in­ stances are the failure to adduce any evidence at all: the Tozer Kemsley case (41); the failure to produce a particular document, and the failure to prove a particular fact: Wigmore, par. 285.

    . . .

    (6) Whether the principle can or should be applied depends upon whether the conditions for its operation exist. These conditions are three in number: (a) the missing witness would be expected to be called by one party rather than the other, (b) his evidence would elucidate a particular matter, (c) his absence is unexplained.

    [4]  Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191, at pages 200-201 (citations omitted)

14. What is often referred to as the “rule in Jones v Dunkel” is an important aspect of the application of the maxim in Blatch v Archer.[5] More particularly, the rule in Jones v Dunkel is the application of Lord Mansfield’s maxim to circumstances where an applicant bearing the legal burden of proof has discharged his or her evidentiary burden of proof (a notion I will describe in a moment), but the respondent, without explanation, does not produce evidence it is reasonable to suppose he or she is in a position to produce that might shed light on a fact in issue in relation to which the applicant has discharged the evidentiary burden of proof. A recent statement of the inferences that a court may draw in these circumstances is contained in the following passage from the judgment of the plurality in Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd:[6]

    The rule in Jones v Dunkel⁴⁷ is that the unexplained failure by a party to call a witness may in appropriate circumstances support an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted the party's case. That is particularly so where it is the party which is the uncalled witness⁴⁸. The failure to call a witness may also permit the court to draw, with greater confidence, any inference unfavourable to the party that failed to call the witness, if that uncalled witness appears to be in a position to cast light on whether the inference should be drawn⁴⁹. These principles have been extended from instances where a witness has not been called at all to instances where a witness has been called but not questioned on particular topics. Where counsel for a party has refrained from asking a witness whom that party has called particular questions on an issue, the court will be less likely to draw inferences favourable to that party from other evidence in relation to that issue⁵⁰.

    [5] Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

    [6] Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11, at [63] (references omitted)

15. The principles associated with Blatch v Archer are well established and, as I have noted, are “a fundamental precept of the adversarial system of justice”.[7] There is, however, a passage from the judgment of Shariff J in Laing O’Rourke Australia Management Services Pty Ltd v Haley,[8] which may suggest that the principles associated with Blatch v Archer are not as well known or understood as I have believed them to be, or that I myself misunderstand them. In Laing O’Rourke (which, as it happens, was an appeal from orders I made) an issue was whether the primary judge erred in the treatment of evidence relevant to an issue on which the respondent bore the legal burden of proof. Shariff J said as follows (emphasis added):

    It is correct, as the primary judge found, that the First and Second Chatwin Affidavits did not disclose the discussions Mr Chatwin had with Mr O’Rourke. It is also true that Mr Chatwin’s evidence in cross-examination as to his discussions with Mr O’Rourke was, at times, vague and lacking in detail. However, the finding that Mr Chatwin had thereby not been candid or fulsome in his evidence was one that assumed a premise that Mr Chatwin was required to disclose his discussions, such as they were, with Mr O’Rourke. Mr Chatwin’s evidence, and LOR’s position, was that he alone was the decision-maker. Even if Mr Chatwin felt duty bound to inform Mr O’Rourke of the decision he had made, and Mr O’Rourke could alter that decision, it did not follow that those matters were ones that he had an obligation to disclose in the First and Second Chatwin Affidavits. The onus cast upon LOR (as a party to civil litigation) was to adduce sufficient evidence to discharge its burden; it had no duty of full disclosure, and the proceedings were not ones that required it adduce all information and evidence that existed (emphasis added): see., e.g., Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 247 CLR 345 at [141]- [143] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

    [7] Russo v Aiello [2003] HCA 53, at [11] (Gleeson CJ). See also Henderson v Queensland [2014] HCA 52, at [91] (Gageler J)

    [8] Laing O’Rourke Australia Management Services Pty Ltd v Haley [2024] FCA 1323, at [355]

1. This passage merits two observations. First, although it may be accurate to refer to an onus to adduce “sufficient evidence to discharge” a burden of proof, that would be accurate only in relation to what is often referred to as the “evidentiary burden of proof”; it does not describe the notion of the legal burden of proof.[9] The notion of sufficiency, as it applies to evidence adduced by a person who bears the legal burden of proof, relates to whether the evidence is reasonably capable of proving the fact or facts in issue to which the evidence is, or if accepted would be, relevant. The notion of sufficient evidence also applies to a person who does not bear the legal burden of proof, but against whom sufficient evidence has been adduced by the party bearing the legal onus of proof. In that context, sufficient evidence denotes evidence that is adduced by the party not bearing the legal burden of proof that is reasonably capable of raising a triable issue of fact. A party who has adduced sufficient evidence in these senses is said to have discharged his or her evidentiary burden of proof.

   [9] As for the distinction between evidentiary and legal burdens of proof see Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164, at pages 167-168: “The expression “burden” or “onus” of proof, “As applied to judicial proceedings . . . has two distinct and frequently confused meanings: (1) the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading - the burden, as it has been called, of establishing a case, whether by preponderance of evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the burden of proof in the sense of introducing evidence” (Phipson on Evidence, 10th ed. (1963) par. 92). . . The position is, we think, correctly stated by the learned author of the work to which we have referred when he says: “the burden of proof in the first sense is always stable, the burden of proof in the second sense may shift constantly, according as one scale of evidence or the other preponderates”.”

2. The notion of the legal burden of proof, on the other hand, in a civil proceeding, denotes the necessity of a party, if he or she is to succeed on his or her claim, to adduce evidence which in fact satisfies the court that the case (or any fact in issue) “has been proved on the balance of probabilities”.[10] Here, “satisfaction” means “actual persuasion”, as Dixon J explained in Briginshaw v Briginshaw:[11]

   The truth is that, when the law requires the proof of any fact, the tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found. It cannot be found as a result of a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality. No doubt an opinion that a state of facts exists may be held according to indefinite gradations of certainty; and this has led to attempts to define exactly the certainty required by the law for various purposes. Fortunately, however, at common law no third standard of persuasion was definitely developed. Except upon criminal issues to be proved by the prosecution, it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.

   [10] Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140(1)

   [11] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336, at pages 361-362

3. The party bearing the legal burden of proof discharges that burden, not when he or she has discharged the evidentiary burden of proof by adducing sufficient evidence - that is, evidence that is reasonably capable of satisfying the court on a balance of probabilities as to the existence or non-existence of facts in issue - but when the court in fact arrives at a state of satisfaction, that is, when the court acquires an “actual persuasion”, as to the existence of a fact in issue. Whether the court will reach such satisfaction will turn on the court’s consideration and weighing of the evidence as a whole, having regard to the submissions the parties make. As Gageler J noted in Henderson v Queensland:[12]

   The process of inferential reasoning involved in drawing inferences from facts proved by evidence adduced in a civil proceeding cannot be reduced to a formula. The process when undertaken judicially is nevertheless informed by principles of long standing which reflect systemic values and experience. One such principle, forming “a fundamental precept of the adversarial system of justice”, is that “all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted”.

   [12] Henderson v Queensland [2014] HCA 52, at [91]

4. The second observation that may be made about the passage from Shariff J’s judgment in Laing O’Rourke is his Honour’s noting that the party on whom the legal burden of proof lies “had no duty of full disclosure, and the proceedings were not ones that required it adduce all information and evidence that existed”. It is of course true that a party in a civil proceeding does not have a duty, analogous to the duty a prosecutor might have in a criminal proceeding, to disclose to another party, as a matter of fairness, material that is or may be relevant to the other party’s case. That is what the High Court held in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar in relation to a regulator who applies for civil penalties.[13] But that has nothing to do with the maxim stated in Blatch v Archer. As Glass JA observed in Parker, the maxim “is a principle of the law of evidence whereby a particular form of reasoning is authorized”, which treats an unexplained failure by a party “to adduce evidence as a reason for increasing the weight of the proofs of the opposite party or reducing the weight of the proofs of the party in default”. Thus, the reasoning the maxim in Blatch v Archer authorizes does not arise from a party’s failure to comply with a duty of full disclosure; it arises from a party’s unexplained failure to adduce evidence it is reasonable to expect would be in that party’s power to adduce.

   BACKGROUND

   [13] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 247 CLR 345, at [141]- [143]

   Keycaps

5. Keycaps are objects that form part of mechanical keyboards. A mechanical keyboard enables a user to communicate with a computer by the user initiating spring-activated switches situated on the keyboard. The user does this by pressing or striking keycaps that have been placed over the switches. By striking the keycaps that cover the spring-activated switches, the user communicates to the computer the letter, number, punctuation, or other information depicted on the face of, or otherwise associated with, the keycaps. Mechanical keyboards differ from standard keyboards; they usually consist of several layers of plastic membranes which, when a key is pressed, connect and close an electric circuit which sends a signal to the computer.

   The market for artisan keycaps

6. Mechanical keyboards possess a number of features that has generated a demand for their use. One is they make unique sounds when a user strikes or presses a keycap that activates a key switch. Another feature is that the pressing or striking of a keycap creates haptic feedback through the user’s fingers. Yet another feature is that the keycaps are detachable from the keyboard. That means that the keycaps that form part of a mechanical keyboard, as originally manufactured, can be removed and replaced with custom-made keycaps. This last-mentioned feature of mechanical keyboards has generated a distinct demand by users of mechanical keyboards for artisan keycaps to replace the originally manufactured keycaps, or artisan keycaps users of mechanical typewriters have already used to replace manufactured keycaps. This demand, in turn, has induced, and continues to induce, persons and entities to design artisan keycaps, and offer to sell to users of mechanical keyboards keycaps that embody their designs.

7. The demand for and supply of artisan keycaps originated with members of online communities in the United States of America who had an interest in mechanical keyboards. Much of that interest was reflected in, and generated by, websites such as “Deskthority”, which provided information about the history of keyboards, describing models of keyboards that had been designed and made. In 2007 a forum known as “GeekHack” was created on which users posted images of keyboards they had collected, communicated information about projects they were working on, and through which keyboard parts could be sourced.[14] In around 2012 users of GeekHack formed groups to import custom keyboards from Korea; and, in time, groups of persons became vendors of keyboards in Australia.[15]

   [14] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [21]

   [15] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [22]-[24]

   Keycap profiles

8. There are different shapes and sizes of keycaps; and these differences are classified in terms of a keycap’s “profile”. Mr Ramadan, in his first affidavit, identifies five “profiles” of keycaps:[16]

   (a)“OEMs”, being the keycaps that are made by the manufacturers of mechanical keyboards and which form part of the keyboard when sold;

   (b)“Cherry”, being a popular profile that is shorter than an OEM;

   (c)“SA”, being a taller profile than the OEM, with a slightly spherical and angled top;

   (d)“XDA”, being a medium height keycap with a spherical top; and

   (e)“DSA”, being a shorter profile with a spherical top.

   [16] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [14]

9. Mr Ramadan distinguishes “artisan” keycaps from other keycaps. Artisan keycaps are sold as individual keycaps that can manually be placed on a mechanical keyboard. They may have a particular design on top, or they may have a particular shape. Mr Ramadan says that, in his experience, an “Esc” key is the most popular location on which to place an artisan keycap, but any key on a mechanical keyboard can be replaced with an artisan keycap.[17] Mr Ramadan further says that consumers purchase artisan keycaps that have the same profile as the rest of the keys on their mechanical keyboard. For example, if an individual owns a mechanical keyboard with Cherry profile keyboards, he or she would purchase an artisan keycap that has a Cherry profile.[18]

   [17] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [17]

   [18] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [18]

10. Ms Hou also gives evidence about OEMs and the Cherry profile. Ms Hou says that OEM keycaps have been mass produced, and are still commonly available on pre-built mechanical keyboards. As for the Cherry profile keycaps, Ms Hou says they are a sculpted mechanical keycap; and they are shorter than OEM keycaps. Ms Hou further says that the Cherry profile keycap is used on a significant majority of mechanical keyboards; and, moreover, the standard specifications of the Cherry profile keycap have been in the public domain for decades.[19] Ms Hou exhibits a screenshot of a post on a website of an image that is described as a “Cherry MX Keycap”, on the right of which appears a “Download files” button. The website is one on which “CAD files and renderings” are posted. I infer that the post provides access to files that enable a 3D copy of the “Cherry MX Keycap” to be made.

    [19] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [26]-[30]; Exhibit KH-1

    Mr Ramadan and the beginning of the RAMA Keycap Business

11. Mr Ramadan completed a Bachelor of Industrial Design (with Honours) in 2015.[20] When he completed his degree Mr Ramadan commenced full time employment as a designer with Unique Micro Design Pty Ltd (UMD). UMD is a family-run technology design and engineering company that was established by Mr Ramadan’s father and uncle in the 1980s. It supplies and designs various devices and interface technologies. UMD also produces keyboards, keycaps, and other computer peripherals, primarily for industrial use.[21] Mr Ramadan worked part time with UMD from 2013 to 2015. As an industrial designer with UMD, Mr Ramadan was responsible for the design and production processes of various custom one-off products, as well as batch-produced products. Mr Ramadan oversaw production, performed some minor circuit design work, and designed product proposals for larger clients. Mr Ramadan worked with UMD until 2019, after which he devoted his energies to the RAMA Keycap Business.[22]

    [20] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [8]

    [21] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [9]

    [22] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [9]

12. In around 2015, while he was completing his Bachelor of Industrial Design degree, Mr Ramadan designed keycaps as a hobby to showcase his designs. Mr Ramadan experimented with designs until 2016, when he launched on GeekHack his first keycap. This was an “aluminium OEM profile WAVE keycap”.[23] There is in evidence a screenshot from the GeekHack Marketplace webpage.[24] Next to the word “Topic” there appear the words “[IC] RAMA Aluminium CNC Keycap – ORDER OPEN”. The maker is identified as “King Rama”, and there appears under the word “maker” a yellow logo which contains in a square two rows of two letters – RA and MA. Next to the logo there appear the words “UPDATE!! You can now order the caps here”; and the link “ is provided. The post also includes price and shipping information. The letters “CNC” stand for “computer numerical control”.

    [23] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [41]

    [24] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [41]; Exhibit RR-1

13. The keycaps Mr Ramadan designed attracted interest, and from 2016 sales steadily increased.[25] Mr Ramadan says that, to his knowledge, the RAMA Keycap Business was the first design business globally to offer and sell CNC machine metal designer keycaps, that is, keycaps that are manufactured by using a computer that controls the manufacturing tools.[26] As interest in the RAMA keycaps grew, Mr Ramadan received requests from “collaborators” to develop artisan keycaps.[27]

    [25] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [42]; Exhibit RR-2, pages 131-134

    [26] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [42]

    [27] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [42]

    Ms Hou and her initial involvement with the RAMA Keycap Business

14. Ms Hou completed a Bachelor of Industrial Design with Honours at Monash University in 2015.[28] From April 2016 to May 2019 Ms Hou was employed as a product design engineer with a company; and from May 2019 to March 2020 she was employed as a product design engineer with another company.[29]

    [28] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [9]

    [29] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [10]-[11]

15. Ms Hou and Mr Ramadan met in 2012 while studying for their degrees; and in early 2016 she and Mr Ramadan commenced living together at an apartment in Doncaster (Doncaster apartment). While living together Ms Hou became aware that Mr Ramadan had started and was conducting a “side business which emerged from” an interest Mr Ramadan had in mechanical keyboards, and the keycaps they used. Ms Hou shared that interest.

16. Ms Hou commenced activities in relation to the RAMA Keycap Business in about February 2017. She helped Mr Ramadan liaise with manufacturers. That involved administrative work; organising project timelines; and dealing with manufacturing problems. [30] Ms Hou also did design and artwork design for products like desk mats, and product packaging design. Ms Hou performed these tasks outside her full-time job.[31] Later, when collaborations became a part of the RAMA Keycap Business, Ms Hou performed most of the tasks associated with that side of the RAMA Keycap Business.[32]

    [30] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [38]

    [31] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [38]

    [32] Affidavit of K Hou 22.12.2022, [35]

    RAMA takes over RAMA Keycap Business

17. During the first half of 2018 Mr Ramadan discussed with his father and the accountant for RAMA the possibility of bringing the RAMA Keycap Business under the ownership of RAMA.[33] RAMA is the trustee of the Ramadan Family Trust that was created in 1990. The company was created by Mr Ramadan’s family; and it has acted as the corporate vehicle that holds family assets and conducts businesses.[34] Mr Ramadan and his father agreed that the RAMA Keycap Business would be owned and conducted by RAMA.[35] To that end, on 26 June 2018 Mr Ramadan cancelled his registration of the business named “RAMA WORKS”,[36] and agreements and arrangements were made by which RAMA came to hold the assets of the RAMA Keycap Business; and it is through RAMA that the RAMA Keycap Business is currently conducted.[37]

    [33] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [45]

    [34] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [20]-[24]

    [35] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [45]

    [36] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [43]

    [37] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [28]

    RWH Pty Ltd

18. According to Mr Ramadan, in around April 2020 he decided to establish “an operating entity for the” RAMA Keycap Business, with the intention that the operating entity carry out the day-to-day operations of the RAMA Keycap Business, with RAMA continuing to act as the holding company of the assets that comprised the RAMA Keycap Business.[38] Mr Ramadan says that in April 2020 he caused the name of a company of which he was the sole director and shareholder to change its name to RWH Pty Ltd (RWHPL); that, since April 2020 “the process of transferring” the RAMA Keycap Business’s operations from RAMA to RWHPL “has been taking place”; that, as at the date of his affidavit (15 August 2022), the process of transfer “is not yet complete”, and that, as at the date of his affidavit, RAMA “still acts as an operating entity for the” RAMA Keycap Business.[39]

    [38] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [29]

    [39] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [30], [31]

    The RAMA Keycaps Business

19. RAMA designs, arranges for the manufacture of, and sells products with a focus on the luxury mechanical keyboard and keycap market. It sells its products through two channels.[40] One is the retail channel, being the side of the business that sells directly to customers through the website “ The other channel is wholesale. RAMA there sells its products to other businesses who are required to place minimum quantity orders which RAMA sets, and who on sell the products to end users. RAMA conducts the wholesale side of its business through a separate web page.[42]

    [40] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [46]-[47]

    [41] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [47(a)]

    [42] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [47(b)]

20. The key products RAMA designs and sells, and the channels through which RAMA sells them, are as follows:[43]

    (a)Artisan keycaps. These are sold through the wholesale channel.

    (b)Complete keycap sets, containing a full set of keycaps that can be added to custom mechanical keyboards that are sold through RAMA’s website.

    (c)Keyboard construction kits. These consist of parts which a customer can use to build mechanical keyboards according to the customer’s individual needs and tastes. The kits are sold without keycaps.

    (d)Macropad sets, which consist of parts customers may use to build small, fully customisable ancillary keyboards that allow customers to map keys, or create additional shortcuts.

    (e)Grid keycap sets designed for use with the macropads. These keycaps have different profiles to the mechanical keycaps.

    (f)“Starter kits”, being switches and stabilisers which are the parts that sit underneath the keycaps on a keyboard.

    (g)Keyboard switches, base plates, back plates, and other equipment and parts that are required to build mechanical keyboards from scratch.

    (h)Other accessories, including desk mats and merchandise.

    [43] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [48]

21. RAMA derives a substantial percentage of its revenues from the sale of artisan keycaps, that is, from the RAMA Keycap Business; and the sale and promotion of artisan keycaps have a strategic significance for RAMA. The prices of artisan keycaps are inexpensive compared with other products RAMA sells, and the purchase of artisan keycaps is a means by which new customers may be exposed to the RAMA brand without making a significant financial commitment. Further, the RAMA Keycap Business launches and promotes RAMA keycaps through social media and other channels, which helps build hype around the RAMA WORKS brand and, therefore, promotes awareness of the RAMA WORKS brand among mechanical keyboard enthusiasts.[44]

    [44] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [51]

    Regular course of RAMA Keycap Business

1. Mr Ramadan has described the general process by which the RAMA Keycap Business designs, manufactures, and sells, artisan keycaps as follows.[45]

   [45] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [54]

   (a)The process is initiated when an independent artist (also known as a “collaborator”) approaches an employee of RAMA to collaborate to design, produce, and sell an artisan keycap that includes a motif the artist has prepared. The artist typically prepares the motif to be engraved into the top of a keycap by means of a computer numerical control machine; but sometimes the artist may also propose that a unique shape or colour be adopted when designing the keycap itself.

   (b)By the time he or she approaches RAMA, the artist will have conducted an “interest check”, that is, an investigation into and assessment of market interest in the purchase of artisan keycaps bearing the artist’s motif. The artist usually conducts an interest check through websites and forums (such as geekhack.com), and through platforms such as Reddit, which is a social media and content aggregation platform with dedicated pages for keycap enthusiasts. The artist will also have secured agreements or potential agreements with third-party vendors who are willing to sell artisan keycaps bearing the artist’s motif.

   (c)After the artist provides the proposed motif, the results of the interest check, and list of third party vendors, RAMA considers them, and assesses the commercial prospects of the proposed collaboration. If RAMA is satisfied there is sufficient interest, and the artist has found sufficient vendor interested in selling the artisan keycaps bearing the artist’s motif, RAMA will enter into a collaboration with the artist under which RAMA will create a keycap design bearing the artist’s motif (this being what I have earlier described as the RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates), and arrange for the manufacture of the artisan keycap. RAMA will not commence these tasks without the artist signing a confidentiality agreement, and a liability waiver.

   (d)Once RAMA has agreed to design the artisan keycap, Mr Ramadan or another person (Ms Hou during the period that is relevant to this proceeding):

   (i)creates a Keycap Collaboration template;

   (ii)incorporates the artist’s conceptual motif into the shape and design of the Keycap Collaboration template;

   (iii)incorporates an inscription on the underside of the keycap of the collaboration name (for example “RAMA x Chaos”, with Chaos being the collaboration name); and

   (iv)renders the new keycap into an image for review by the artists, and the vendors, and also for promotional use.

   (e)The artisan keycap is then “launched”. This consists of artists and vendors informing the intended market of the availability for “pre-order” of the artisan keycap, and making them available for “pre-order” through their websites and social media channels. RAMA would not, without vendors having agreed to order a minimum quantity of the keycaps, agree to the launching of the keycap, and therefore commence to manufacture the keycaps.

   (f)The launch of an artisan keycap is followed by a period known as “group buy”. That is the period during which vendors promote to the market the opportunity for persons to preorder and pay before delivery the volume key caps the vendors have committed to order from the RAMA Keycaps Business.[46]

   (g)If, after the group buy period ends, the minimum order amount for the group buy has been met, the vendor collates order numbers, and places a finalised production order for the artisan keycaps through RAMA’s wholesale channel, at a price RAMA determines.

   (h)After the vendors pay RAMA the amounts for the orders, RAMA arranges the manufacture of the artisan keycaps. RAMA provides the manufacturer with the design file on the basis of which they can manufacture the keycap as RAMA designed them. Once produced, the manufacturer delivers the artisan keycaps to RAMA’s distribution centre in Melbourne where they undergo quality control. The artisan keycaps are then delivered to the vendors for delivery by them to their customers.

   [46] An example of such promotion is at pages 139-143 of Exhibit RR1

   CREATION OF RAMA KEYCAP DESIGN TEMPLATES

2. As I have already noted, the artisan keycaps RAMA arranges to be manufactured and sold are based on the RAMA Keycap Collaboration template RAMA creates for the artisan keycaps in question; and the RAMA Keycap Collaboration template is, in turn, based on one of a number of RAMA Keycap Design templates. Mr Ramadan says that the RAMA Keycap Design templates are “the core files used to create the bespoke collaborations” of the RAMA Keycaps Business.[47] Mr Ramadan created these files using the SolidWorks software.

   [47] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [97]

   The SolidWorks software

3. The SolidWorks software contains functions that enable the user, first, to create 3D models of parts from two-dimensional (2D) sketches, or from a series of 2D sketches of the part by adding to the 2D sketch or sketches features such as extrude, revolve, fillets, cuts, and holes; second, to combine the models of the 3D parts to create 3D models of an assembly of the 3D parts; and, third, to create a 2D drawing of the 3D model of the assembly.[48] The modelling the SolidWorks software enables a user to perform is often referred to as “feature-based modelling”.[49]

   [48] Lombard, M. Mastering SolidWorks, John Wiley & Sons, 2019, page 8

   [49] Lombard, M. Mastering SolidWorks, John Wiley & Sons, 2019, page 15

4. Mr Simpson, an expert (called by RAMA) in the use of SolidWorks software and other computer assisted design software (CAD), has given the following evidence about CAD software and the SolidWorks software:[50]

   SolidWorks is a popular CAD [computer-aided design] software. It is a sophisticated, professional software that allows for both ideation development and engineering-level documentation and analysis of digital models. SolidWorks is a “parametric” (as opposed to a “direct” or “surface modelling”) CAD modelling system, meaning while individual elements of the geometry of a 3D object being designed within SolidWorks are designed piece by piece, the designer is able to apply global constraints and relationships to the object as a whole (such as dimensions, wall thickness, hole sizes etc.), such that each step in the 3D design process is informed by, and related to, the preceding step. By contrast, direct modelling simply involves the modelling of each piece of a model individually, without reference or constraint with respect to other pieces of the model.

   . . . .

   Conversely, SolidWorks is also commonly used to CAD models of objects for manufacturing. I note:

   (a) Every aspect of a CAD model that is intended to be used in manufacturing needs to be highly accurate, as the final dimensions of the CAD model are used in the physical manufacture process.

   (b) CAD models that will be used in the manufacturing process also need to be “stable”. Stability in CAD refers to the ability of the CAD model to accommodate changes to shapes and size. The more complex the CAD model (by complex I mean the more individual modelling steps are involved in creating the model), the more skill it requires to create stability, because each step in a parametric CAD model potentially references the previous steps, meaning an error or inconsistency in any step can cause rebuild errors (instability) across the whole model. In SolidWorks, stability is created by defining components in relation to a datum (sometimes referred to as a reference sketch or plane) and thinking about how the foundation steps in the CAD will affect the finished outcome. Stable CAD is confined in its X,Y and Z axis.

   (c) Finally, for a CAD model to be suitable for use in manufacturing it also needs to account for any limitations of the manufacturing process. By this, I mean that the CAD designer needs to take into account any minimum/maximum sizes, thicknesses or tolerances that the machine which will be used to manufacture the part is constrained by.

   [50] Report annexed to the affidavit of A Simpson 17.08.2022, Exhibit AS-1 (First Simpson Report), at [15], [18]

5. The 3D models of the parts and assemblies that are created by use of the SolidWorks software are located in files that are identified by the software as “.SLDPRT”. These files store information about the geometry of the 3D model that is in the file, and information about the SolidWorks software features that have been used to create the geometry.[51] This information can be viewed by activating the set of functions the SolidWorks software identifies as “Feature Manager” (Feature Tree). Mr Simpson described the set of functions that comprise the Feature Tree as follows: [52]

   In this affidavit, I refer to the SolidWorks Feature Manager design tree (the feature tree). The feature tree in SolidWorks appears down the left-hand side of the screen, and provides an outline view of the active part, assembly or drawing. This makes it easy to see how the model or assembly was constructed or to examine the various sheets and views in a drawing. Each “step” in the feature tree represents a step the author of a SolidWorks file took to create the 3D modelled object. The steps in the feature tree are chronological, displaying from top to bottom in the order the author of the file undertook each step. When a SolidWorks’ user clicks a particular step in the feature tree, the part of the model represented by that step is highlighted in blue. This is how I created the screenshots of each step within section 4 of my report below.

   [51] First Simpson Report, [22]

   [52] First Simpson Report, [20]

6. Mr Rodezno, the expert the respondents called, in the glossary to his report (Rodezno Report) describes “Feature Tree” as follows:[53]

   Feature Tree – The Design Feature Tree on a Solidworks part file is an ordered list of information that provides an outline view of the active Solidworks part file. The feature tree allows the user to see how a part model was constructed. The feature tree lists the features  used to model the part in order of creation.

   [53] Affidavit of L A Rodenzo 23.12.2022, Exhibit LAR-1, page 28

   The Keycap Design templates

7. The RAMA Keycap Design templates are made up of two elements or, to use the terminology of the SolidWorks software, two parts, the keycap top and the stem.

   Keycap top and its creation

8. The keycap top is a solid cube shape which makes up the section of the keycap as seen from above. Mr Ramadan obtained the solid cube shapes of each of the RAMA Keycap Design templates by commissioning others to scan three dimensional generic keycap profiles. Mr Ramadan first commissioned such 3D scanning in 2017 of an “Esc” key in the Cherry profile. Since then, Mr Ramadan commissioned a scanning and design company to create a number of 3D scan files of generic keycap tops. In addition to the “Esc” keycap in the Cherry profile, RAMA commissioned the 3D scanning of the “Esc” in the SA, DSA, and DCS profiles, the “Enter” key on the SA profile, a sculpted “Esc” key in the SA profile, and a “Return” key in the Cherry profile.[54] When he commissioned the 3D scanning, Mr Ramadan requested there be added “planes”, that is, a rectangular 2D object used in CAD software to add geometry to the 3D scan file. Mr Ramadan made that request so that he could use the plane to align the parts of the remaining 3D model with the stem Mr Ramadan created (which I discuss in the next section).

   [54] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [18]

9. Each of the 3D scanned profiles is stored or located in specifically named computer files.

   RAMA Stem template and its creation

10. The second element of the RAMA Keycap Design template is the representation of what is below the keycap top. This element may be described as the bottom of the keycap, an essential element of which is the “stem”. The “stem” of a keycap is the component of the keycap that connects it to the switch on the keyboard.[55] Mr Ramadan designed the stem (RAMA Stem template) that is represented in each of the Keycap Design templates towards the end of 2015, using the SolidWorks software.[56] Before he designed the RAMA Stem template, Mr Ramadan undertook market research which involved reviewing many keycaps, and gathering measurements of the many different types of keyboard switches in the market, which have varied tolerances and shapes. Mr Ramadan discovered that metal keycaps typically only had extrusions (that is, cut outs) in their stem with limited notable aesthetic elements and shapes.[57] On the basis of his research, Mr Ramadan formed two objectives in his design of the stem for RAMA keycaps. One was that he wanted the keycaps RAMA would design to be machined out of metal to give RAMA keycaps a premium quality feel. The other was to build as much material as possible into the stem, to give the RAMA keycaps a solid premium feel, given that many of the keycaps were simple and hollow.[58]

    [55] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [13(b)]

    [56] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [28]

    [57] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [30]

    [58] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [31]

11. Mr Ramadan designed the RAMA Stem template by taking the following steps:[59]

    [59] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [32]

    (a)First, Mr Ramadan created a “connection point”, being the body and shape of the section that connects to the switch. Mr Ramadan did this by inputting dimensions he had acquired through his research. Mr Ramadan designed the connection point to be cut flat on the top and bottom faces instead of being completely circular, so that the connection shape could also work with Topre switches. (A Topre switch has a circular hole instead of a protruding cross shape.)

    (b)Second, Mr Ramadan created a model of the top section of a switch to simulate the interaction when a keycap is depressed. That permitted Mr Ramadan to determine accurately the widest points of the top housing of the switch to allow for the maximum wall thickness.

    (c)Third, Mr Ramadan rounded the edges of the thickened walls to a heavy degree. Mr Ramadan intended the rounded edges to be part of RAMA’s signature design.

    (d)Fourth, Mr Ramadan added a heavy “chamfer”, that is, an angle, to prevent the keycap from colliding with the lip of the switch when fully pressed, thus avoiding the possibility of the key being stuck and remaining depressed when pressed.

    (e)Fifth, Mr Ramadan added the first level of infill to the underside of the keycap, to fill the void in the underside of the keycap. This made the keycap easier to manufacture.

    (f)Sixth, Mr Ramadan added a second level of infill to the void in the underside of the keycap to ensure that the underside of the stem design would be in line with the upwardly sloped edges on the switch housing. The second level infill allowed for the keycaps to have the maximum wall thickness as was practicable, while maintaining the ability of the keycap to be machined on a device RAMA used to cut keycaps out of solid metal.

    (g)Seventh, Mr Ramadan rounded the inner edges of the connection point to remove any sharp edges which could shear the section of the switch that those elements connect to, as well as to make the connection point more aesthetically pleasing.

    (h)Eighth, Mr Ramadan levelled the base of the stem to be the height of the switch. This was necessary to ensure that the stem of the switch perfectly fits into the keycap stem.

    (i)Ninth, Mr Ramadan drew the word “RAMA” as cut outs embedded into the face of the stem.

    (j)Tenth, Mr Ramadan rounded the letters of “RAMA” to remove any sharp lines, and to make it aesthetically pleasing.

    (k)Eleventh, Mr Ramadan rounded all of the internal edges of “RAMA” to remove all sharp lines and edges; and added a chamfer to the top of the connection point to aid with insertion when placing the keycap on the switch, as well as to create a surface to add laser etching of additional details (such as collaboration names and edition numbers).

    (l)Finally, Mr Ramadan “captured” the inverse of the stem to be used as a “master” to apply to other keycap scans of files.

12. Mr Ramadan has incorporated the RAMA Stem template, which he has modified after 2015,[60] into each of the Keycap Design templates. He did this by applying the RAMA Stem template to each (representation of) solid keycap top templates by extracting from the bottom of those templates the inverse reflection of the RAMA Stem template shape, and then applying the Stem template shape into the space that is left by the extraction.[61]

    [60] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [33]

    [61] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [34]

    Combining the RAMA Stem template and keycap top elements

13. Having commissioned and received a 3D scan of the relevant keycap profile (around 90% of which are Cherry profile keycaps), Mr Ramadan completed the RAMA Keycap Design template. Mr Ramadan did this by importing the 3D scan file into the SolidWorks software; and then importing the RAMA Stem template into the SolidWorks software and inserting it into the underside of the 3D modelled shape. The effect of these steps was to turn what was originally a 3D model which perfectly replicated a real-world Cherry profile “Esc” keycap into a product that could be manufactured using specialised computer-controlled production machines.[62]

    [62] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [36(d)]

14. Mr Ramadan finalised the RAMA Cherry Keycap Design template by around 21 October 2017.[63] Although, as I have noted, Mr Ramadan says that the RAMA Cherry Keycap Design template is “the core template” RAMA uses for “Cherry” profile keycap collaborations using the “Esc” key, Mr Ramadan has created variations of this template for “Cherry” profile keycaps in relation to keycaps other than the “Esc” key. That was necessary because different keys have different shapes, which means that the specifications for each of these keycaps are different, even though the RAMA Stem template is integrated into the underside of each.[64]

    [63] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [36(e)]

    [64] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [38]

15. Mr Ramadan has given evidence of other keycap design templates he has created, noting that each of the keycap design templates is located in a distinctly named file. These include files for what Mr Ramadan has described as the “DSA Profile Templates”, the “KAM Profile Template”, the “SA Profile Templates”, the “DCS Profile Templates”, the “KAT Profile Templates”, and the “OEM Profile Templates”.[65] 

    [65] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [44]

    CREATION OF RAMA KEYCAP COLLABORATION TEMPLATES

16. As I have already noted, a collaboration with an artist usually consists of RAMA having accepted a proposal from an artist or collaborator to produce an artisan keycap that embodies the artists’ motif at the top of the keycap. Assuming RAMA has accepted the collaboration, RAMA uses the relevant RAMA Keycap Design template to create a template on which there is engraved the artist’s motif (these being what I have described as “RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates”), and then arranged for the manufacture of keycaps in accordance with the RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates. The steps by which this occurred are as follows:[66]

    (a)A RAMA industrial designer (this role was performed by Ms Hou when she was employed by RAMA) checks the artist’s design, adjusts it using the programme called “Adobe Illustrator”, and saves it as a “DXF” file, being a 2D drawing file that is searchable by the SolidWorks software.

    (b)The DXF file is imported into the relevant RAMA Keycap Design template file in the SolidWorks software on a 2D plane sitting above the keycap.

    (c)The RAMA designer copies the artist’s 2D image (as contained in the DXF file) onto the face of the RAMA Keycap Design template in the SolidWorks software. By this process the artist’s motif is “imprinted” on the top of the RAMA Keycap Design template.

    (d)The file bearing the imprinted design keycap template is exported to a “STEP” file (being a universal CAD format file).[67] The STEP file is used in production and manufacturing, and also for making renders of how the keycap will appear when manufactured. (A “render” is a photorealistic 2D image of a 3D model.[68])

    (e)The industrial designer sends the STEP file to the manufacturer for production. The manufacturer RAMA engaged uses a CNC machining process to make the keycaps in accordance with the RAMA Keycap Collaboration template, and then carve the artists’ motif onto the keycap top. The carved motif either remains as an indent, or is filled with enamel.

    [66] Affidavit of R Ramadan 16.08.2022, [54]

    [67] More particularly, “STEP” stands for “Standard for the Exchange of Product Data ”. As Mr Simpson notes later in the first Simpson report (at [58]), STEP “is a common ISO standard exchange format, that is, a file format that is used for sharing files that contain 3D data”.

    [68] Affidavit of R Ramadan 15.08.2022, [101]

File	Item 4, Exhibit RDM-4 Ref	Device on which file located	Ref to Particulars Letter, Annexure C
RAMA-CHERRY- DRACULA- EYE.STEP	Item 10168012 Item 10290350	PORTABLESSD01	123
RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- FINER.STEP	Item 10293892 Item 10311851	PORTABLESSD01	132
RAMA-CHERRY- FIRSTLOVE.STEP	Item 10293892 Item 10311851	PORTABLESSD01	133
RAMA-CHERRY- FUJI_01.STEP	Item 941874 Item 10297523 Item 1515518 Item 10318129	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	135
RAMA-CHERRY- FUJI_02.STEP	Item 941831 Item 10297522 Item 1515517 Item 10318128	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	136
RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- FUTUREFUNK.STEP	Item 10301412 Item 10293011	PORTABLESSD01	137
RAMA-CHERRY- INUKUMA-01.STEP	Item 944180 Item 10303249 Item 10250221 Item 1627523	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	156
RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- JAMON-BACON- 01.STEP	Item 10231524 Item 10251692	PORTABLESSD01	158
RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- JAMON-EGG- 01.STEP	Item 10231523 Item 10251691	PORTABLESSD01	159
RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MAE-HALF.STEP	Item 942361 Item 10210916 Item 10317969 Item 1589045	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	164

File	Item 4, Exhibit RDM-4 Ref	Device on which file located	Ref to Particulars Letter, Annexure C
RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MAE- MAESTRO.STEP	Item 942363 Item 10210918 Item 10317971 Item 1589047	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	165
RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MAE- QUARTER.STEP	Item 942401 Item 10210917 Item 10317970 Item 1589046	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	166
RAMA-CHERRY- METAVERSE- ESC.STEP	Item 10290134 Item 10290695	PORTABLESSD01	172
RAMA-CHERRY- METRO-R-01.STEP	Item 941396 Item 10011025 Item 9963381 Item 1627553	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	173
RAMA-CHERRY- METRO-R-04.STEP	Item 941443 Item 10011026 Item 9963382 Item 1627554	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	176
RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MINIMAL- CIRCLE.STEP	Item 10247570 Item 10247753	PORTABLESSD01	177
RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MINIMAL- SQUARE.STEP	Item 10247572 Item 10247755	PORTABLESSD01	178
RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MINIMAL- TRIANGLE.STEP	Item 10247571 Item 10247754	PORTABLESSD01	179
RAMA-CHERRY-R1- MD2.STEP	Item 10158284 Item 10166825	PORTABLESSD01	181
RAMA-CHERRY-R1- MDL.STEP	Item 10166706 Item 10250610	PORTABLESSD01	182

File	Item 4, Exhibit RDM-4 Ref	Device on which file located	Ref to Particulars Letter, Annexure C
RAMA-CHERRY- ENTER-NAUT2.STEP	Item 10318550 Item 10255844	PORTABLESSD01	189
RAMA-CHERRY- ENTER- NAUTNIGHTMARES .STEP	Item 10267598 Item 10220993	PORTABLESSD01	190
RAMA-CHERRY- NORSE-01.STEP	Item 940729 Item 10232288 Item 10290428 Item 1570604	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	192
RW-KC-C-ENTER- OLIVE-03.STEP	Item 10325775 Item 10318137	PORTABLESSD01	202
RW-KC-C-ESC- BLOSSOM.STEP	Item 10301645 Item 10169901	PORTABLESSD01	208
RAMA-CHERRY- PHOSPHOR.STEP	Item 10314042 Item 10290117	PORTABLESSD01	215
RAMA-CHERRY- PKNVY_R1.STEP	Item 9947437 Item 10149431	PORTABLESSD01	216
RAMA-CHERRY- GMK-PONO_1.STEP	Item 10247442 Item 10229659	PORTABLESSD01	220
RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- POLY_02.STEP	Item 10119870 Item 10218194 Item 10220044 Item 10011734	PORTABLESSD01	219
RAMA-CHERRY- GMK-PONO_2.STEP	Item 10247441 Item 10229658	PORTABLESSD01	221
RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-ESCAPE- RAINY.STEP	Item 9936843 Item 10298076	PORTABLESSD01	222
RAMA-CHERRY- RED DEVILS_01.STEP	Item 10294475 Item 10119846	PORTABLESSD01	228

File	Item 4, Exhibit RDM-4 Ref	Device on which file located	Ref to Particulars Letter, Annexure C
RAMA-CHERRY- RED DEVILS_02.STEP	Item 10294474 Item 10119845	PORTABLESSD01	29
RAMA-CHERRY- RDRA-R1.STEP	Item 10158896 Item 10241961 Item 9965453 Item 9965970	PORTABLESSD01	232
RAMA-CHERRY- RDRA-R1- ENTER.STEP	Item 10158897 Item 10241962 Item 9965454 Item 9965971	PORTABLESSD01	233
RAMA-CHERRY- SANDSTORM.STEP	Item 10171941 Item 10250123	PORTABLESSD01	244
RAMA-CHERRY- SERIKA-R1.STEP	Item 9942097 Item 9982631	PORTABLESSD01	245
RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- SHANSHUI_1.STEP	Item 9948170 Item 10294344	PORTABLESSD01	246
RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- SHANSHUI_2.STEP	Item 9948171 Item 10294345	PORTABLESSD01	247
RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- SHANSHUI_3.STEP	Item 9948172 Item 10294346	PORTABLESSD01	248
RAMA-CHERRY- STAR_01.STEP	Item 10300899 Item 10165148	PORTABLESSD01	256
RAMA-CHERRY-R1- SUMI-KANJI.STEP	Item 10301766 Item 10300446	PORTABLESSD01	261
RAMA-CHERRY-R1- SUMI- TORII_NEW.STEP	Item 10301765 Item 10300445	PORTABLESSD01	263
RAMA-CHERRY- ESC-THINK-02.STEP	Item 9945454 Item 10161679	PORTABLESSD01	269
RAMA-CHERRY-FN- THINK-01.STEP	Item 9945455 Item 10161680	PORTABLESSD01	270

File	Item 4, Exhibit RDM-4 Ref	Device on which file located	Ref to Particulars Letter, Annexure C
RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-ESCAPE- TRACKDAY- R3.STEP	Item 941465 Item 10315089 Item 10209231 Item 1616710	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	273
RAMA-CHERRY-R1- TUZI_FACE.STEP	Item 10011589 Item 10218151	PORTABLESSD01	277
RAMA-CHERRY-R1- TUZI_MOON.STEP	Item 10011590 Item 10218152	PORTABLESSD01	278
RAMA-CHERRY- VAPOR.STEP	Item 10267579 Item 10304442	PORTABLESSD01	284
RAMA-CHERRY- VOYAGE.STEP	Item 10300316 Item 10300543 Item 10220003 Item 10220417	PORTABLESSD01	289
RAMA-CHERRY- WM_02.STEP	Item 944665 Item 10250533 Item 10251340 Item 1617963	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	291
RAMA-CHERRY- YEETI_R01.STEP	Item 941977 Item 10297910 Item 10304503 Item 1616082	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	300
RW-KC-C-ESC-ION- 01.STEP	Item 10267268 Item 10314774	PORTABLESSD01	307
RW-KC-C-ESC- KEYCULT-B.STEP	Item 900414 Item 10307320 Item 10324558 Item 10294372 Item 10318418 Item 10267761 Item 10290316	MACBOOK02 PORTABLESSD01	330

File	Item 4, Exhibit RDM-4 Ref	Device on which file located	Ref to Particulars Letter, Annexure C
RAMA-CHERRY- EPBT_AMALFI.STEP	Item 10250094 Item 10244792	PORTABLESSD01	335
RW-KC-SA-R1- DUALSHOT.STEP	Item 10210089 Item 10293094	PORTABLESSD01	337
RAMA-CHERRY- SYD2019.STEP	Item 10324956 Item 10294422	PORTABLESSD01	343
RW-KC-C-ESC- THERMAL-02.STEP	Item 10307569 Item 10325913	PORTABLESSD01	346
RW-KC-C-ESC- XENO-01.STEP	Item 10245918 Item 10318135	PORTABLESSD01	347
RAMA-CHERRY- ZAMBU.STEP	Item 10297480 Item 10307763	PORTABLESSD01	348
RAMA-CHERRY- SHOPIFY_02.STEP	Item 10149415 Item 10158434	PORTABLESSD01	350

SCHEDULE B – DRAFT ORDERS

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.On any one or more of 20 August 2021, 22 August 2021, or 15 September 2021, the first respondent infringed the copyright the applicant owns in the RAMA Keycap Design templates, the RAMA Stem templates, and the RAMA Keycap Collaboration templates that are constituted by the data contained in the RAMA Keycap template files listed in Schedule A to these orders (Infringement Table 1), by downloading those files from a drive or drives the applicant controlled to a device or devices the first respondent controlled without the applicant’s permission.

2.From 28 August 2021 to at least August 2022 the first respondent and (from 18 October 2021 to at least August 2022) the second respondent infringed the copyright the applicant owns in the RAMA Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files listed in Column 1 of the table in Schedule B to these orders (Infringement Table 2) by reproducing substantial parts of that data to create the HIBI Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files listed in Column 2 of Infringement Table 2, the extent of the similarities between the RAMA Keycap Design templates and the HIBI Keycap Design templates being specified in Column 3 of Infringement Table 2.

3.From 28 August 2021 to at least August 2022 the first respondent and (from 18 October 2021 to at least August 2022) the second respondent, infringed the copyright the applicant owns in the RAMA Keycap Design templates by:

(a)creating the HIBI Keycap Collaboration templates constituted by the data contained in the files listed in Column 3 of the table in Schedule C to these orders (Infringement Table 3) on the basis of the HIBI Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 2 of Infringement Table 3, being substantial reproductions of the RAMA Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 1 of Infringement Table 3; and

(b)creating the HIBI Keycap Collaboration templates in relation to the collaborations identified in Column 2 of the table in Schedule D to these orders (Infringement Table 4) on the basis of one of the HIBI Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 2 of Infringement Table 3, being substantial reproductions of at least one of the RAMA Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 1 of Infringement Table 3.

4.By the first respondent, without the permission of the applicant, engaging in the following conduct while an employee of the applicant, namely:

(a)on 20 August 2021 downloading from one of the applicant’s Network Access Storage servers (NAS server) to a device or devices the first respondent controlled the files referred to by the log of the NAS server for 20 August 2021;

(b)on 22 August 2021 downloading from the applicant’s Google server to a device or devices the first respondent controlled the files comprised in the 43 downloads identified in an email Google sent to the first respondent at 11.36 pm on 22 August 2021;

(c)on 15 September 2021 downloading from the applicant’s Google server to a device or devices the first respondent controlled the files comprised in the 2 downloads identified in an email Google sent to the first respondent at 6.22 pm on 15 September 2021; and

(d)by so doing the first respondent downloaded to a device or devices she controlled or controls information (RAMA Confidential Information) that includes the RAMA Keycap Design template files, the RAMA Stem template files, and the RAMA Keycap Collaboration template files, being the files listed in Infringement Table 1;

the first respondent:

(e)breached the duty of confidence she owed to the applicant not to access or use the RAMA Confidential Information for a purpose other than for the purposes of the applicant’s business, such duty having arisen from the RAMA Confidential Information being confidential to the applicant;

(f)breached the implied term of the first respondent’s contract of employment to serve the applicant with loyalty and fidelity;

(g)breached the fiduciary duties the first respondent owed the applicant not to use her position as employee to benefit or profit herself or some other person to the detriment of the applicant; and not to place herself in the position where her personal interest conflicted with the duties she owed the applicant;

(h)breached the duty s 182(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) imposed on the first respondent not to make improper use of her position as an employee of the applicant, and thus contravened s 182(1) of the Corporations Act; and

(i)breached the duty s 183(1) of the Corporations Act imposed on the first respondent not to make improper use of information the applicant obtained by use of her position as an employee to gain an advantage for herself or someone else, or cause detriment to the applicant, and thus contravened s 183(1) of the Corporations Act.

5.By the first respondent from around 28 August 2021 to 18 October 2021 on behalf of herself, and from 18 October 2021 to at least August 2022 on behalf of the second respondent:

(a)creating:

(i)the HIBI Keycap Collaboration templates constituted by the data contained in the files listed in Column 3 of Infringement Table 3; and

(ii)the HIBI Keycap Collaboration templates in relation to the collaborations identified in Column 2 of Infringement Table 4, on the basis of the HIBI Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 2 of Infringement Table 3, being files the first respondent created by substantially reproducing the RAMA Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 1 of Infringement Table 3; and

(b)causing keycaps to be manufactured to the specification of the HIBI Keycap collaboration templates referred to in (a), and selling those keycaps,

the first respondent:

(c)breached the duty of confidence she owed to the applicant not to access or use the data that comprised the RAMA Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 1 of Infringement Table 3 for a purpose other than the applicant’s business, such duty having arisen from the files being confidential to the applicant;

(d)breached the fiduciary duties the first respondent owed the applicant not to use her position as employee to benefit or profit herself or some other person to the detriment of the applicant; and not to place the first respondent in the position where her personal interest conflicted with her duties and obligation;

(e)breached the duty s 182(1) of the Corporations Act imposed on the first respondent not to make improper use of her position as an employee of the applicant, and thus contravened s 182(1) of the Corporations Act; and

(f)breached the duty s 183(1) of the Corporations Act imposed on the first respondent not to make improper use of information the first respondent obtained by use of her position as an employee to gain an advantage for herself or someone else, or to cause detriment to the applicant, and this contravened s 183(1) of the Corporations Act

6.By the second respondent, through the first respondent, having engaged in the conduct identified in paragraphs 5(a) and (b) of these orders, and in circumstances where the first respondent controlled the second respondent, the second respondent:

(a)breached the duty of confidence it owed to the applicant not to use the data that comprised the RAMA Keycap Design templates constituted by the data contained in the files identified in Column 1 of Infringement Table 3 for a purpose other than the applicant’s business, such duty having arisen from the files being confidential to the applicant;

(b)was knowingly involved in the first respondent’s breaches of fiduciary duty referred to in paragraph 5(d) of these orders; and

(c)was knowingly involved within the meaning of s 79 of the Corporations Act in the first respondent’s contraventions of s 182(1) and s 183(1) of the Corporations Act.

7.The first and second respondents are liable to account for the profits the second respondent made that are attributable to the second respondent’s sale of the keycaps referred to in paragraph 5(b) of these orders, such profit being $311,956.47.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

8.Subject to order 9, the first and second respondents by themselves, their employees and agents, are permanently restrained, without the applicant’s prior consent given in writing, from using any of the RAMA Confidential Information, including any of the information that contained in the RAMA Design, Stem, and Collaboration template files identified in Infringement Table 1.

9.Within 14 days after the date these orders are pronounced, the first respondent file and serve an affidavit in which the first respondent:

(a)identifies every device or devices the first and second respondents control or have access to, or once controlled or had access to, but no longer control or have access to, to which there was downloaded, uploaded, transferred, or copied all or any of the files or part of the files (Downloaded Files) that were the subject of the downloads specified in the log of the NAS server for 20 August 2021; the 43 downloads identified in the email Google sent to the first respondent at 11.36 pm on 22 August 2021; and the 2 downloads identified in the email Google sent to the first respondent at 6.22 pm on 15 September 2021; and

(b)in relation to the each of the devices identified pursuant to order 9(a), identifies each and every one or any part of one the Downloaded Files that were downloaded, uploaded, transferred, or copied to and from the device.

10.Within 7 days after the first respondent files and serves the affidavit pursuant to order 9:

(a)in relation to devices the first or second respondent identifies in the affidavit filed pursuant to order 9 which are in the control of the first or second respondents, the first and second respondents either:

(i)deliver the devices to the lawyers of the applicant for destruction; or

(ii)the first or second respondents cause to erase permanently the Downloaded Files from the devices, and the first respondent file and serve an affidavit deposing to the steps the first or second respondents have taken to erase permanently the Downloaded Files;

(b)in relation to devices the first respondent identifies in the affidavit filed pursuant to order 9 which are not in the control of the first and second respondents, but to which the first or second respondent have access:

(i)take such steps as are necessary to erase permanently the Downloaded Files from those devices, and

(ii)the first respondent file and serve an affidavit deposing to the steps the first or second respondents took to erase permanently the Downloaded Files from those devices; and

(c)in relation to each device the first respondent identifies in the affidavit filed pursuant to order 9 which the first or second respondents no longer control, or to which they no longer have access, the first respondent file and serve an affidavit specifying to the best of the first respondent’s information and belief:

(i)what has become of the device which was in the first or second respondents’ control; and

(ii)the circumstances in which and the terms on which the first or second respondents ceased having access to such device.

11.The first and second respondents account for the profits of $311,956.47 attributable to the second respondent’s sale of the keycaps referred to in order 7 by the first and second respondents paying to the applicant $311,956.47 together with interest calculated from 1 July 2023.

12.Pursuant to s 1317H(2) of the Corporations Act the first and second respondents pay to the applicant $311,956.47 together with interest calculated from 1 July 2023.

13.Payment of any amount on account of order 11 shall be taken to constitute a discharge of the amount payable under order 12 to the extent of the payment; and payment of any amount on account of order 12 shall be taken to constitute a discharge of the amount payable under order 11 to the extent of the payment.

SCHEDULE A TO ORDERS

Infringement Table 1

No	RAMA Keycap Design template files (Column 1)	RAMA Keycap template files (Column 2)	RAMA Keycap Collaboration template files (Column)
1	RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT	RAMA-R4-ESC-ARTISAN-R007.SLDPRT	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-FB- R1.STEP
2	RAMA-CHERRY-PROFILE-ALT- 02.SLDPRT	RAMA-KC-MASTER-ALU-CHERRY-STEM.SLDPRT	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE- OTC_01.STEP
3	RAMA-CHERRY-PROFILE-FN-01.SLDPRT	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- AE-01.STEP
4	RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ENTER-01.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- SHRIMP_R1.STEP
5	RW-DSA-CAP-02.SLDPRT	-	RW-KC-C-ESC- DIXIE.STEP
6	RAMA-DSA-REF-R00.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- OMNI-SBO-R1- 01.STEP
7	RW-KAM-KC-01.SLDPRT named RW-KC-SA-R3-MASTER.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE- AMETHYST- AXE.STEP
8	RW-KC-SA-R3-MASTER-R02.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-
8A	RAMA-DSA-REF-R00-SA.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-FB- R1.STEP
9	RAMA-DSA-REF-R00-SASCULPTED. SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE- OTC_01.STEP
10	RW-DCS-KEYCAP- 01.SLDPRT	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- AE-01.STEP
11	KAT R1.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- SHRIMP_R1.STEP
12	RAMA-R4-ESCARTISAN- R007.SLDPRT	-	RW-KC-C-ESC- DIXIE.STEP
13	RAMA-R4-ESC-ARTISAN-BLANKR002. SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- OMNI-SBO-R1- 01.STEP
14	RAMA-R4-ESC-ARTISAN-R008.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE- AMETHYST- AXE.STEP
15	RAMA-R4- ESC-ARTISAN-R009.SLDPRT	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-
16	-	-	AMETHYST- GEM.STEP
17	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- APOLLO.STEP
18	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- AWAKEN-01.STEP
19	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- AZURE_R1.STEP
20	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- BEMOJI.STEP
21	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- BENTO-01.STEP
22	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- BENTO-02.STEP
23	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- BENTO-DEEP- NEW.STEP
24	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC- BENTO-03.STEP
25	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- BETA.STEP
26	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- BIRCH-01.STEP
27	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1- BUSHIDO.STEP
28	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- CAFE-R1.STEP
29	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ENTER- CIVI_02.STEP
30	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESC-CIVI_01.STEP
31	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- COJIRO_1.STEP
32	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- COJIRO_2.STEP
33	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- DANDY-01.STEP
34	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_DEVO_PEN.STEP
35	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_DEVO_ROSE.STE P
36	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- DOTS.STEP
37	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- DRACULA- ERR.STEP
38	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- DRACULA- EYE.STEP
38	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- FINER.STEP
40	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- FIRSTLOVE.STEP
41	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- FUJI_01.STEP
42	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- FUJI_02.STEP
43	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- FUTUREFUNK.STEP
44	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- INUKUMA-01.STEP
45	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- JAMON-BACON- 01.STEP
46	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- JAMON-EGG- 01.STEP
47	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MAE-HALF.STEP
48	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MAE- MAESTRO.STEP
49	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MAE- QUARTER.STEP
50	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- METAVERSE- ESC.STEP
51	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- METRO-R-01.STEP
52	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- METRO-R-04.STEP
53	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MINIMAL- CIRCLE.STEP
54	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MINIMAL- SQUARE.STEP
55	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- R1_MINIMAL- TRIANGLE.STEP
56	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1- MD2.STEP
57	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1- MDL.STEP
58	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ENTER-NAUT2.STEP
59	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ENTER- NAUTNIGHTMARES .STEP
60	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- NORSE-01.STEP
61	-	-	RW-KC-C-ENTER- OLIVE-03.STEP
62	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC- BLOSSOM.STEP
63	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PHOSPHOR.STEP
64	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PKNVY_R1.STEP
65	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- GMK-PONO_1.STEP
66	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESCAPE- POLY_02.STEP
67	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- GMK-PONO_2.STEP
68	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-ESCAPE- RAINY.STEP
69	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- RED DEVILS_01.STEP
70	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- RED DEVILS_02.STEP
71	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- RDRA-R1.STEP
72	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- RDRA-R1- ENTER.STEP
73	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- SANDSTORM.STEP
74	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- SERIKA-R1.STEP
75	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- SHANSHUI_1.STEP
76	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- SHANSHUI_2.STEP
77	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-GMK- SHANSHUI_3.STEP
78	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- STAR_01.STEP
79	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1- SUMI-KANJI.STEP
80	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1- SUMI- TORII_NEW.STEP
81	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ESC-THINK-02.STEP
82	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-FN- THINK-01.STEP
83	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- PROFILE-ESCAPE- TRACKDAY- R3.STEP
84	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1- TUZI_FACE.STEP
85	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1- TUZI_MOON.STEP
86	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- VAPOR.STEP
87	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- VOYAGE.STEP
88	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- WM_02.STEP
89	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- YEETI_R01.STEP
90	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC-ION- 01.STEP
91	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC- KEYCULT-B.STEP
92	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- EPBT_AMALFI.STEP
93	-	-	RW-KC-SA-R1- DUALSHOT.STEP
94	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- SYD2019.STEP
95	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC- THERMAL-02.STEP
96	-	-	RW-KC-C-ESC- XENO-01.STEP
97	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- ZAMBU.STEP
98	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY- SHOPIFY_02.STEP
99	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-R1_01.STEP RAMA-CHERRY-DREAM-02.STEP
100	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-SOYA-R1.-01.STEP
101	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-PROFILE-ESCAPE-TRACKDAY.STEP
102	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-PROFILE-ESCAPE-TRACKDAY-R2 STEP
103	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-TERRoR-R1.STEP
104	-	-	RAMA-CHERRY-CHAOS-R1.STEP
105	-	-	RAMA-KC-SA-GEOMA.STEP

SCHEDULE B TO ORDERS

Infringement Table 2

RAMA Keycap Design template file (Column 1)	HIBI Keycap Design template file	Nature and extent of similarity
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	The files share nearly exact dimensions in almost all respects; and they only differ minutely in the dimensions and shape of the internal cavity, and in the use of the chamfers of radius on the edges of the internal stem.
RAMA-CHERRY-PROFILE-FN-01.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry R4 template file)	HB-CHE-R4-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI R4 Keycap template file)	The files “[s]hare nearly exactly the same dimensions in almost all respects”, and that “the layout and critical dimensions are exactly the same -down to 0.00 mm”.
RAMA-CHERRY-PROFILE-ENTER-01.SLDPRT (RAMA Enter Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-ENTER-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Enter Keycap template file)	The files “[s]hare nearly exactly the same dimensions in almost all respects”, and that “the layout and critical dimensions are exactly the same - down to 0.00 mm”.
RW-DCS-KEYCAP-01.SLDPRT (RAMA DCS template file)	HB-DCS-R-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI DCS template file)	Design of the two files is nearly identical with only minor differences in the interior cavity around the stem and the size and position of the fillet at the foot of the key.
RW-KC-SA-R1-MASTER-R01.SPDPRT (RAMA SA R1 template file)	HB-SA-R1-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI SA R1 template file)	The files are nearly identical in shape and dimension and have been created using nearly identical techniques.
RW-KC-SA-R3-MASTER.SPDPRT (RAMA SA R3 template file)	HB-SA-R3-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI SA R3 template file)	The files are nearly identical in shape and dimension but have been created using different techniques.
RW-DSA-CAP-02.SLDPRT (RAMA DSA template file)	HB-DSA-1U.SLDPRT(HIBI DSA template file 1);  HB-DSA-R1.SLDPRT (HIBI DSA template file 2)	The HIBI DSA template files and the RAMA DSA template file share nearly exact dimensions in almost all respects.
KAT R1.SLDPRT (RAMA KAT template file)	HB-KAM-R1-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI KAT template file)	HIBI KAT template file and the RAMA KAT template file have the layout and critical dimensions of the stem that are the exact same – down to 0.00m.
RAMA KAM template file	HB-KAM-SOLID-01.SLDPRT (HIBI KAM template file 1);HB-KAM-R1-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI KAM template file 2)	Have differing dimensions on the top of the template; have a small but noticeable difference of the two parts of 0.28 mm; have an overall difference in the footprint of 0.27 which would be 0.135 mm either side; and neither file have a stem. The files are similar in shape and dimensions but have been created using different techniques.
RAMA – CHERRY – PROFILE – ESCAPE - 07.SLDPRT (RAMA Chaos Collaboration template file)	HB-CHE-R1-DER-03.SLDPRT (HIBI Chaos Collaboration Template file)	The HIBI Chaos Collaboration template file and the RAMA Chaos Collaboration template file have the same measurements as the HIBI Cherry Master Keycap file RAMA Cherry Keycap template file respectively.

SCHEDULE C TO ORDERS

Infringement Table 3

RAMA Keycap Design template file	HIBI Keycap Design template file	HIBI collaboration
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	DMG Profile: Cherry Profile Escape Row; Date: 27.09.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Soyamilk Profile: Cherry Profile Escape Row Date: 01.10.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Zenpond Profile: Cherry Profile Escape Row Date: 04.10.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Dreambird Profile: Cherry Profile Escape Row Date: 05.10.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Chaos Theory Profile: Cherry Profile Escape Row Date: 08.10.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Handerbeige Profile: Cherry Profile Escape Row Date: 14.10.2021
RW-DSA-CAP-02.SLDPRT (RAMA DSA template file)	HB-DSA-1U.SLDPRT(HIBI DSA template file 1);  HB-DSA-R1.SLDPRT (HIBI DSA template file 2)	Witch Girl Profile: DSA Date: 19.10.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Terror Profile: Cherry Escape Row Date: 23.10.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Winter breath Profile: Escape Row (infer Cherry) Date: 01.11.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	November Fog Profile: Escape Row (infer Cherry) Date: 01.11.2021
RW-KC-SA-R3-MASTER.SPDPRT (RAMA SA R3 template file)	HB-SA-R3-MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI SA R3 template file)	SA Geoma Profile: SA Profile – Escape Row R 3 04.11.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Tiramisu Profile: Cherry Escape Row Date: 04.11.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Dracula Profile: R1 (infer Cherry) Date: 06.11.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Villanelle Profile: Cherry Escape Date: 15.11.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Power Chord Profile: Cherry Date: 06.12.2021
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	GMK Trackday Profile: Cherry Date: 03.01.2022
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	NTD Profile: Cherry – Ri, 1U Date: 28.01.2022
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Fenglisu Profile: Cherry – R1, 1U Date: 08.03.2022
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Jamon Profile: Cherry – R1, 1U Date: 04.04.2022
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Peach Blossom Profile: Cherry – R, 1U Date: 01.05.2022
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Bordeaux Profile: Cherry – R, 1U Date: 31.05.2022
RAMA-CHERRYPROFILE-ESCAPE-07.SLDPRT (RAMA Cherry Keycap template file)	HB-CHE-R1 -MASTER.SLDPRT (HIBI Cherry Keycap Master template file)	Arabian Sea Profile: Cherry – Escape Row Date: 15.06.2022

SCHEDULE D TO ORDERS

Infringement Table 4

No	Collaboration	Date released
9	HIBI & Kam Soaring Skies	28.10.2021
10	HIBI & Hooty	28.10.2021
17	HIBI & Reledendables+	16.11.2021
18	HIBI & Witch	24.11.2021
19	HIBI & GMK Camping	01.12.2021
20	HIBI & Olive <2 – 3	December 2021
22	HIBI & MW Commute	10.12.2021
23	HIBI & Yukihana	11.12.2021
24	HIBI & Calculator	03.01.2022
25	HIBI & MW Sogurt	03.01.2022
27	HIBI & Fleuriste	25.01.2022
29	HIBI & Blue Moon	02.02.2022
30	HIBI & Kat Chinchillin	02.02.2022
31	HIBI & Evil Eye	02.02.2022
32	HIBI & LNY22	02.02.2022
33	HIBI & Galaxy	04.02.2022
34	HIBI & Superstar	12.02.2022
35	HIBI & Magic Girl	14.02.2022
36	HIBI & Indigo	18.02.2022
37	HIBI & GMK Mercury	25.02.2022
38	HIBI & GMK Orange Boi	01.03.2022
40	HIBI & Reaper	14.03.2022
41	HIBI & Pluto	15.03.2022
42	HIBI & Snzagkeys	16.03.2022
43	HIBI & Voynich	21.03.2022
44	HIBI & Satellite	15.03.2022
45	HIBI & Maroon	28.03.2022
47	HIBI & Cinder	08.04.2022
48	HIBI & Stone Age	09.04.2022
49	HIBI & Petrikeys	15.04.2022
50	HIBI & Gladiator	15.04.2022
51	HIBI x AeBoards	27.04.2022
52	HIBI & Peach Blossom R2	01.05.2022
54	HIBI & ZIMO	05.05.2022
56	HIBI & Prussian Blue	01.06.2022
57	HIBI & GMK Mictlan	03.06.2022
58	HIBI & Instagram	02.06.2022
59	HIBI & Cultured	10.06.2022
61	HIBI & Classic Beige	17.06.2022
62	HIBI & GMK Coral R2	22.06.2022
63	HIBI & GMK Regal	01.07.2022
64	HIBI & James Webb Space Telescope	12.07.2022
65	HIBI & GMK Yütousi	21.07.2022
66	HIBI & GMK Taiga	22.07.2022
67	HIBI & GMK Fitness Studio	29.07.2022
68	HIBI & KDS DEKU	02.08.2022
69	HIBI & DCS DARK SKY	08.08.2022