Kafataris v Davis

Kafataris v Davis was an appeal against the findings of the primary judge that Mr Kafataris was not an inventor and that there had been no misuse of his confidential information by the respondents, Mr Cory Davis or Mr Rowland Thomas, either directly or through their patent attorney, Mr John Walsh. The primary judge had concluded that there was no fiduciary relationship between the parties and rejected the contention that the parties were in a fiduciary relationship. The appeal was dismissed by the court, which held that the primary judge had approached all relevant questions correctly and reached findings which were open to him. No applicable error had been demonstrated.

The primary judge identified the case as being limited to two issues: whether Mr Kafataris should be regarded as an inventor within s 15 of the Patents Act and whether there had been misuse of his confidential information by the respondents. Mr Davis had filed a provisional patent application for the invention entitled "Baccarat Game with Supplementary Betting Option" with Mr Thomas being described as the sole inventor. The appeal related to whether Mr Kafataris should be regarded as an inventor and whether the information provided to the respondents was used for purposes other than that for which it was communicated, in violation of the equitable rights of confidence held by Mr Kafataris.

The court held that the primary judge's analysis was correct, and that the parties were not in the necessary fiduciary relationship. The court found that the relationship was one of arms-length commercial negotiations, and that there was no evidence that any of the parties undertook to act in the interests of the others. The court rejected the contention that the parties were in a fiduciary relationship, accepting the respondents' contention that there was no evidence that any of the parties undertook nor agreed "to act for or on behalf of the interests of another person in the exercise of the power or discretion which will affect the interests of that person in a legal or practical sense".

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the respondents. The court held that the primary judge had approached all relevant questions correctly and reached findings which were open to him. No applicable error had been demonstrated.