Stack v Brisbane City Council - [2000] FCA 598

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Stack v Brisbane City Council [2000] FCA 598
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Entitlement - eligible person - whether declarations under s 34 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) could be made.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Setting aside declarations of the Court - application for re-opening case and leading new evidence after trial and judgment.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 15, 34
Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1991) 28 NSWLR 471 Cited
Hindmarsh Medical Clinic v Hindmarsh Family Practice Pty Ltd (1997) 38 IPR 616 Cited
GEORGE STACK AND GS TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD v THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, DAVIES SHEPHARD PTY LTD AND DAVIES SHEPHARD (QUEENSLAND) PTY LIMITED
QG28 OF 1994
GS TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD v DAVIES SHEPHARD PTY LTD AND GSA INDUSTRIES (AUST) PTY LTD
QG29 OF 1996
COOPER J
BRISBANE
10 MAY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG28 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

GEORGE STACK
First Applicant

G S TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
Second Applicant

AND:

THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
First Respondent

DAVIES SHEPHARD PTY LTD
Second Respondent

DAVIES SHEPHARD (QUEENSLAND) PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG29 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

G S TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

DAVIES SHEPHARD PTY LTD
First Respondent

GSA INDUSTRIES (AUST) PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE:

10 MAY 2000

PLACE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Australian Petty Patent No 645740 is revoked.
2.The notice of motion filed 21 October 1999 by the first and second applicants, to the extent that it seeks orders in terms of paragraphs 1 to 6 inclusive, be dismissed.
3.The notice of motion otherwise be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
4.The proceedings be adjourned to a date to be fixed to determine all consequential orders to be made in proceedings QG28 of 1994, QG11 of 1996, QG21 of 1996, QG29 of 1996, VG39 of 1996 and VG40 of 1996 consequent upon the revocation of Australian Petty Patent No 645740, including the costs of the trial of the issues of entitlement and validity, and the costs on the notice of motion filed 21 October 1999.
5.Costs of today’s appearance be reserved until the date of the adjourned hearing in terms of paragraph 4 above.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG28 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

GEORGE STACK
First Applicant

G S TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
Second Applicant

AND:

THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
First Respondent

DAVIES SHEPHARD PTY LTD
Second Respondent

DAVIES SHEPHARD (QUEENSLAND) PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG29 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

G S TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

DAVIES SHEPHARD PTY LTD
First Respondent

GSA INDUSTRIES (AUST) PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE:

10 MAY 2000

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background

On 17 March 1994 George Stack…

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.

Continue reading Stack v Brisbane City Council

Details

AGLC: Stack v Brisbane City Council [2000] FCA 598
Case: [2000] FCA 598
Decision Date: 10 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stack v Brisbane City Council involved the applicants seeking the revocation of Australian Petty Patent No 645740 and various orders related to the patent's validity and entitlement. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Supreme Court. The applicants, who were parties to the proceedings, argued that the patent was invalid and sought its revocation. They also requested several consequential orders concerning other related proceedings and costs.

The primary legal issues before the court were the validity of the patent and the appropriate orders to be made in the event of its revocation. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the patent was valid and enforceable and whether the applicants were entitled to the orders they sought. The applicants argued that the patent was invalid, and as a result, they were entitled to the revocation of the patent and the consequential orders they requested.

The court, in its reasoning, found that the patent was indeed invalid and therefore revoked it. The court dismissed the applicants' request for the specific orders they sought in the notice of motion, but it adjourned the remainder of the notice of motion to a later date. The court also adjourned the proceedings to determine the consequential orders that needed to be made in relation to several other cases, including the costs of the trial of the issues of entitlement and validity and the costs of the notice of motion. The costs incurred for the appearance on the day of the hearing were reserved until the date of the adjourned hearing.

In summary, the court revoked the patent and dismissed some of the applicants' requests for orders but left the determination of other consequential orders for a later date. The costs were reserved pending the outcome of the further hearings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Australian Petty Patent No 645740 is revoked.

2. The notice of motion filed 21 October 1999 by the first and second applicants, to the extent that it seeks orders in terms of paragraphs 1 to 6 inclusive, be dismissed.

3. The notice of motion otherwise be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

4. The proceedings be adjourned to a date to be fixed to determine all consequential orders to be made in proceedings QG28 of 1994, QG11 of 1996, QG21 of 1996, QG29 of 1996, VG39 of 1996 and VG40 of 1996 consequent upon the revocation of Australian Petty Patent No 645740, including the costs of the trial of the issues of entitlement and validity, and the costs on the notice of motion filed 21 October 1999.

5. Costs of today’s appearance be reserved until the date of the adjourned hearing in terms of paragraph 4 above.

Note:

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

COOPER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COOPER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG28 OF 1994

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG29 OF 1996

JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE:	10 MAY 2000
PLACE:	BRISBANE