Camilleri v Steel Foundations Limited

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Camilleri v Steel Foundations Limited [2002] QSC 397

PARTIES:

PAUL ANTHONY CAMILLERI
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
STEEL FOUNDATIONS LIMITED
(ACN 064 933 599)
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

813 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2002

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

Summary judgment be granted in respect of the Slabmaster patent

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where defendant company applied for summary judgment – whether plaintiff had no real prospect of succeeding

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – PATENTS – PATENT APPLICATIONS – WHO MAY APPLY – OTHER MATTERS – where defendant company obtained patent to invention – where plaintiff inventor sought declaration under s34 of the Patents Act 1990 that he was an eligible person – where correspondence addressed to plaintiff inventor informed him of the defendant company’s application – where plaintiff inventor asserted the defendant company’s right to the patent to company staff and third parties – whether plaintiff inventor had a real prospect of showing he was an eligible person

Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 15, s 34(1)(a), s 34(1)(b)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 293

Bernstrom v National Australia Bank Ltd [2002] QCA 231, followed
Davies Shepherd Pty Ltd v Slack [2001] FCA 501, followed
General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways(NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, not followed
George C Warner Laboratories Pty Ltd v Chemspray Pty Ltd (1967) 41 ALJR 75, followed
Hepples vFederal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 94 ALR 81, followed
National Australia Bank Limited v Troiani and Anor [2002] QCA 196, followed
Preston Erection Pty Ltd v Speedy Gantry Hire Pty Ltd (1998) 43 IPR 74, followed
Printing and Numerical Registering Company v Sampson (1873) LR 19 Eq 462, followed
Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, followed
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3) [2001] 2 All ER 513, followed
Worthington Pumping Engine Company v Moore (1902) 20 RPC 41 at 49, followed

COUNSEL:

D G Eliades for the plaintiff/respondent
D J Campbell, with J M Horton, for the defendant/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Raj Lawyers for the plaintiff/respondent
Adamson Bernays Kyle & Jones for the defendant/applicant

1. This is an application for summary judgment brought by the defendant pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR). Rule 293(2) of the UCPR relevantly provides:

“(2)       If the court is satisfied –

(a)the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on all or a part of the plaintiff’s claim; and

(b)there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim;

the court may give judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for all or the part of the plaintiff’s claim and make any other order the court considers appropriate.”

1. If the court is satisfied of the circumstances set out in r 293(2)(a)…