Legal Research
Cases
Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd

Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 5 July 1999 81 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 898
PATENTS – validity – novelty – whether information in several advertisements formed an allowable “mosaic” – whether pictures in advertisements revealed an anticipation of the invention – discussion of evidence of what the advertisements would have revealed to the skilled person – discussion of the test for novelty – the role of “mechanical equivalents” in the assessment of an alleged anticipation – discussion of the distinction between anticipating material from which the existence of an integer of a combination could be inferred and material from which it could be concluded the addition of an essential integer would clearly be a good idea – inventorship – infringement – discussion of the rule that sale of a component part of a combination claim for an entire machine is not an infringement – rule that in such a case the vendor must have made himself a party to the act of infringement to be liable – discussion of participation in infringement and of inducing or procuring an infringement – combination to infringe – discussion of evidence of the procurement of an infringement – discussion of the proposition that you cannot avoid infringement by making a patented machine work a little worse and then providing a remedy – whether the “substance” of an invention had been deliberately left outside the claim – discussion of damages for infringement of a patent – measure of damages by the attribution of a reasonable royalty – prima facie measure of damages of the profit the patentee could have earned – estimation where precision is impossible – whether sale of patented combination without warning to purchaser that use might involve infringement amounted to a contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
TRADE PRACTICES ACT, S 52 – whether sale of patented combination without warning to purchaser that use might involve infringement amounted to a contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 - discussion of the proposition that misleading conduct need not be representational – circumstances where it was more realistic to see the conduct as misleading without resort to a representational analysis – inference from the engaging by a corporation in misleading conduct and the doing of the thing to which that conduct tended that it did have a causative effect.
Patents Act 1952 (Cwth), s 100
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cwth), s 52
Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 171 affirmed
Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Australia) Pty Ltd (1995) AIPC 39,188 reversed in part
Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 151 cited
Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 152 ALR 604 applied
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v Beiersdorf (Australia) Limited (1980) 144 CLR 253 applied
Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1989) 14 IPR 330

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] FCA 898
Decision Date: 5 JULY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the defendant. The dispute centred around the defendant's failure to adhere to specific contractual terms, leading to financial losses for the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the defendant had breached the contract and, if so, the extent of the damages owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the defendant was unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense. The court also needed to consider the principles of quantum meruit and whether the plaintiff was entitled to restitution for the value of the services provided.

The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the contract by failing to meet certain obligations. The breach led to the plaintiff incurring costs that were not recoverable under the contract. In addressing the unjust enrichment claim, the court determined that the defendant had indeed been unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense. The court calculated the damages based on the contract terms and the value of the services provided, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. The court also found that the principle of quantum meruit applied, and the defendant was liable for restitution.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the calculated damages and restitution. The exact amount was to be determined based on further submissions, and the court directed that appropriate minutes of orders be prepared.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondents and cross-appellants bring in, on a date to be fixed, short minutes of orders appropriate to be made in the light of these reasons.

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.