Neobev Pty Ltd v Bacchus Distillery Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 4)

Neobev Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Bacchus Distillery Pty Ltd, which had administrators appointed, concerning a dispute over a patent. The central issue revolved around the ownership and inventorship of a particular patent, specifically the 593 Patent, as well as the sale of confidential information and copyright works associated with the patent. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address included whether the patent was held on trust for Neobev and, if so, whether the Register of Patents should be rectified to reflect Neobev as the co-owner of the patent. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Neobev was entitled to an injunction to prevent Bacchus from selling or promoting for sale the confidential information and copyright works associated with the patent.

The court found that the patent was indeed held on trust for Neobev. The court acknowledged the error in the Register of Patents that failed to recognise Mr. Max Scott as the sole inventor of the 593 Patent. Consequently, the court ordered the Commissioner of Patents to rectify the Register to accurately reflect Mr. Scott as the sole inventor. However, the court declined to order the rectification of the Register to record Neobev as a co-owner of the patent. The court reasoned that such rectification would amount to an in specie distribution of trust property, which was not permissible. Despite this, the court granted an injunction to restrain Bacchus from selling or promoting for sale the confidential information and copyright works without Neobev’s consent. The court reserved the question of costs for a later date.

The final orders included the rectification of the Register of Patents to name Mr. Max Scott as the sole inventor of the 593 Patent and the issuance of an injunction against Bacchus from promoting for sale, selling, or otherwise disposing of the confidential information or copyright works without Neobev’s consent. All questions of costs were reserved for a later determination.