Robert Dommett v Zebra Research Pty Ltd

In the case of Robert Dommett v Zebra Research Pty Ltd, the dispute centred on the identity of the inventor of a geo-demographic profiling system. The requestor, Robert Dommett, sought to establish his inventorship of the system, which he claimed was developed independently of any dealings with the applicant, Zebra Research Pty Ltd. The applicant, in turn, argued that the invention had originated from discussions with one of its employees, Ms Harris, who had subsequently worked with the requestor. The matter was heard and determined by O L Haggar, a Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the requestor had established his inventorship of the system and, if so, whether he had forfeited any right to inventorship through public disclosure of the subject matter before the priority date. The court needed to examine the evidence presented by both parties, including statutory declarations and exhibits, to ascertain the true origin of the inventive concept and determine if there had been any public disclosure that could forfeit the requestor's rights.

In reaching its decision, the court found that while the requestor had established that the inventive concept was indeed developed by him, the evidence also showed that the subject matter had been publicly disclosed before the earliest priority date. This disclosure was made by or with the consent of the requestor, resulting in the forfeiture of any right to inventorship. Consequently, the court concluded that it was inappropriate to make any determination under section 32 or any declaration under section 36 in the requestor's favour. The court further ruled that, given the requestor's partial success in proving inventorship but failure to secure the relief available under sections 32 and 36, it was appropriate for each party to bear their own costs.

Therefore, the court's final orders were that no determination would be made under section 32 or any declaration under section 36 in favour of the requestor, and each party would bear their own costs.