Dincel Construction System Pty Limited v AFS Systems Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, Dincel Construction System Pty Limited sought an interlocutory injunction against AFS Systems Pty Ltd, alleging patent infringement concerning a building element. Dincel, the exclusive licensee of a patent, claimed that AFS's product infringed on specific claims, including those related to "ramp surfaces". AFS contested these allegations, arguing against the interpretation of the patent's claims and the balance of convenience favouring the injunction.

The legal issues before the court were whether Dincel had established a prima facie case for patent infringement and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction. The court examined the construction of the patent claims, particularly the term "ramp surfaces", and assessed whether Dincel's evidence was sufficient to show a likelihood of success at trial. Additionally, the court considered whether the potential harm to Dincel if the injunction was not granted outweighed the harm to AFS if the injunction was granted.

The court concluded that Dincel had made out a prima facie case for patent infringement. The analysis of the patent claims, particularly the "ramp surface integer", showed that AFS's product met the criteria set out in Dincel's patent. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory injunction, as the potential harm to Dincel's business reputation and market position if the infringing activity continued outweighed the harm to AFS. Consequently, the court granted the injunction.

The final orders restrained AFS from manufacturing, importing, selling, supplying, or offering to sell the infringing building element in Australia until the proceeding was determined. The injunction aimed to preserve the status quo and prevent further infringement pending the final outcome of the case.