CQMS Pty Ltd v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FCA 847

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CQMS Pty Ltd v Bradken Resources Pty Limited [2016] FCA 847

File number: QUD 736 of 2013
Judge: DOWSETT J
Date of judgment: 27 July 2016
Catchwords: PATENTS – claimed invention relating to ground engaging tools – infringement – construction of claims – where no expert evidence from a skilled addressee – meaning of “aperture” – unjustified threat of legal proceedings for infringement – whether genuine steps to resolve a dispute constitute unjustified threats
Legislation:

Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth) ss 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 136

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.01

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth)

Patents Act1990 (Cth) ss 40, 117, 128, 129, 129A, 130, 131, 132

Patents Act 1952 (Cth) s 121

Patents Act 1903 (Cth) s 91A

Cases cited:

Benmax v Austin Motor Coy Ltd (1953) 70 RPC 284

C Van Der Lely NV v Bamfords Limited (1963) 80 RPC 61

Mechanical Services (Trailer Engineers) Ltd v Avon Rubber Co Ltd (1977) 94 RPC 66

Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 91 ALR 513

Skinner & Co v Perry (1893) 10 RPC 1

Sydney Cellulose Pty Ltd and Anor v Ceil Comfort Home Insulation Pty Ltd and Others (2001) 53 IPR 359

Vax Appliances Limited v Hoover plc [1991] FSR 307

Yamazaki Mazak Corporation v Interact Machine Tools (NSW) Pty Limited (1991) 22 IPR 79

Date of hearing: 7 to 15 April 2015
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Sub-area: Patents & Associated Statutes
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 193
Counsel for the Applicants and the Cross‑Respondents: Mr R Webb SC with Mr H Bevan
Solicitor for the Applicants and the Cross‑Respondents: Thomson Geer
Counsel for the Respondents and the Cross‑Claimants: Mr D Shavin QC with Mr P Flynn
Solicitor for the Respondents and the Cross‑Claimants: Jones Day

ORDERS

QUD 736 of 2013
BETWEEN:

CQMS PTY LTD ACN 122 935 906

First Applicant

CQMS RAZER PTY LTD ACN 010 402 990

Second Applicant
AND:

BRADKEN RESOURCES PTY LIMITED ACN 098 300 988

First Respondent

BRADKEN LIMITED ACN 108 693 009

Second Respondent
AND BETWEEN:

BRADKEN RESOURCES PTY LIMITED ACN 098 300 988 (and another named in the Schedule)

First Cross-Claimant
AND:

CQMS PTY LTD ACN 122 935 906 (and another named in the Schedule)

First Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 JULY 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.the matter be stood over for the parties to consult as to the form of final orders.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DOWSETT J:

THE APPLICANTS AND THE PATENTS

  1. The first applicant (CQMS) holds Australian Standard Patent number 2008234400 (the “400 Patent”) and Australian Innovation Patent number 2013100615 (the “Innovation Patent”).  According to the evidence of Mr Douglas Leslie Wallis, CQMS is an “intellectual property holding company”.  It has licenced the second applicant (“CQMS Razer”) to…

Continue reading CQMS Pty Ltd v Bradken Resources Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
CQMS Pty Ltd v Bradken Resources Pty Limited [2016] FCA 847
Case
[2016] FCA 847
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CQMS Pty Ltd brought an action against Bradken Resources Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of a patent relating to ground engaging tools. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary focus was on the interpretation of the patent claims and the alleged infringement of those claims by Bradken. The dispute also involved a claim that Bradken's threats of legal action constituted unjustified threats under the Patents Act 1990.

The court was required to determine the precise meaning of certain terms in the patent claims, particularly the term "aperture," and whether Bradken's products fell within the scope of these claims. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Bradken's threats to take legal action for patent infringement were justified under the circumstances. The court examined the context in which the threats were made and whether Bradken had taken genuine steps to resolve the dispute before initiating legal proceedings.

The Federal Court, after a detailed analysis, found that the meaning of "aperture" in the context of the patent claims was not entirely clear and required expert evidence from a skilled addressee to be properly construed. The court also held that Bradken's threats of legal action were unjustified because they were made without first engaging in genuine efforts to resolve the dispute. Consequently, the court ruled that the matter should be stood over to allow the parties to consult and agree on the form of final orders.

The court ordered the matter to be stood over for the parties to consult as to the form of final orders. This decision was made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the matter be stood over for the parties to consult as to the form of final orders.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.