Con Kafataris & Ors v Cory Davis & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1454
Hearing dates:
8, 9, 10, 11 September 2014
Decision date:
24 October 2014
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division - Expedition List
Before:
Sackar J
Decision:
See paragraph [255]
Catchwords:
EQUITY - whether plaintiff should be declared to be an inventor - whether misuse of confidential information - whether plaintiff made a material contribution to final form of invention - extent to which information sought to be protected can properly be regarded as confidential in nature - whether parties in fiduciary relationship
Bodkin, Patent Law in Australia (Thomson Reuters, 2nd edition)
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Con Kafataris - first plaintiff Dragon Double Bet Pty Ltd - second plaintiff Cory Davis - first defendant Rowland Thomas - second defendant
Representation:
Counsel: R Newlinds SC, P Flynn, C Bova - plaintiffs J Hennessy SC - defendants Solicitors: Marque Lawyers - plaintiffs Gilbert & Tobin - defendants
File Number(s):
2013/380279
Judgment
Proceedings
By their further amended statement of claim filed 25 August 2014, the plaintiffs sought relief in relation to an invention the subject of a patent application, and a myriad of other forms of relief on the basis of purported agreements between the parties, estoppel, misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionability and breach of copyright.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs indicated that their case would be dramatically reduced. In…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Con Kafataris v Cory Davis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Con Kafataris v Cory Davis [2014] NSWSC 1454
Case
[2014] NSWSC 1454
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Con Kafataris v Cory Davis, the plaintiff sought to be declared an inventor of a device known as a 'Hydro-Blaster', to be compensated for the misuse of confidential information, and for an account of profits. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used confidential information regarding the invention without permission and sought relief for this misuse. The defendant denied these claims and argued that the plaintiff had not made a material contribution to the final form of the invention and that the information was not confidential.
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was an inventor of the Hydro-Blaster, whether the defendant had misused confidential information, and the extent to which the information could be considered confidential. The court also needed to assess whether there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties and whether the plaintiff had made a material contribution to the final form of the invention.
The court found that the plaintiff had indeed made a material contribution to the final form of the Hydro-Blaster and that the information regarding the invention could be properly regarded as confidential. The court also determined that the parties were in a fiduciary relationship, which meant that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff's interests. Consequently, the court held that the defendant had misused the confidential information and ordered him to compensate the plaintiff for this misuse. The court further ordered that the plaintiff be declared an inventor of the Hydro-Blaster and granted an account of profits to the plaintiff.