INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – infringement – contributory infringement – supply of a product – what constitutes supply – reason to believe that person supplied would put product to infringing use – criteria of reason to believe – staple commercial product exclusion – statutory licence to enter and remove timber of particular species – timber used to produce oil according to patented process – whether grant of statutory licence constituted supply for purposes of contributory infringement – whether mere permission to collect constitutes supply – whether statutory licence confers realty interest in the nature of profit a prendre – whether grant of realty interest constitutes supply – whether unmilled standing timber the subject of the licence constituted a staple commercial product – timber commercially useable for non-infringing purposes – relevant product class – unmilled timber
PROPERTY LAW – licence – profit a prendre – interest in the nature of profit a prendre – statutory licence to cut and remove timber – contractual licences compared
WORDS AND PHRASES – “supply” – “staple commercial product” – “reason to believe”
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Collins v Northern Territory
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Collins v Northern Territory [2007] FCAFC 152
Case
[2007] FCAFC 152
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Collins v Northern Territory, the dispute arose between Collins and the Northern Territory regarding the contributory infringement of a patent. The matter was heard and decided by the court of appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge's orders were correct in addressing the alleged contributory infringement of the patent by the Territory without extending the hearing into issues regarding the validity of the patent and its infringement by ACOC. The court had to determine if the primary judge's assumption of the patent's validity and ACOC's alleged actions were appropriate for the present purposes of the case.
The court found that the primary judge's orders were not in line with the court's reasons for judgment. The court held that the primary judge should not have assumed the validity of the patent and ACOC's alleged actions without properly addressing the issues of patent validity and infringement by ACOC. Consequently, the court concluded that the primary judge's orders should be set aside and the matter should be remitted to the primary judge for further hearing and determination in light of the court's reasons for judgment.
Following the court's reasoning and conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal. The matter, including the question of the costs of the first instance hearing to date, was remitted to the primary judge for such further hearing as his Honour deemed necessary and determination in light of the joint reasons for judgment of Branson and Sundberg JJ.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The orders made by the primary judge on 8 December 2006 be set aside.
3. The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
4. The matter, including the question of the costs of the first instance hearing to date, be remitted to the primary judge for such further hearing as his Honour deems necessary and determination in the light of the joint reasons for judgment of Branson and Sundberg JJ.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
FRENCH, BRANSON AND SUNDBERG JJ
In his reasons, immediately after setting out the separate questions, the primary judge said:‘That order was made to address the alleged contributory infringement of the patent by the Territory without extending the hearing into issues as to the validity of the patent, and its infringement by ACOC. As I have said, for present purposes I have assumed the validity of the patent, and that ACOC’s alleged actions have infringed it.’CONCLUSION Having regard to our above conclusions, the orders made by the primary judge should be set aside and the matter remitted to his Honour to be further heard and determined in the light of these reasons for judgment.