Stack v Brisbane City Council

The applicants, George Stack and G.S. Technology Pty Ltd, initiated proceedings against the Brisbane City Council, Davies Shephard Pty Ltd, and Davies Shephard (Queensland) Pty Limited, seeking an injunction, damages, and an account of profits for the alleged infringement of Australian petty patent number 645740. The respondents sought to rely on Chapter 17 of the Patents Act 1990 as a defence, prompting the court to address several preliminary questions. The primary issues included whether the Brisbane City Council was an "authority of a State," if the exploitation of the invention was for the services of the State, whether the Council had authorised the respondents in writing, and the date from which such authorisation was effective. Additionally, the court considered whether the Brisbane City Council was the relevant authority within Chapter 17 of the Act.

The court found that the Brisbane City Council was indeed an "authority of a State," as its functions and powers were exercised on behalf of the State and in the public interest. The exploitation of the invention by the Council was determined to be for the services of the State, as it was integral to the Council's function of supplying water and measuring consumption. The Council had authorised Davies Shephard Pty Ltd in writing to exploit the invention, with the authorisation being effective from 14 February 1994. The court declined to answer whether the Brisbane City Council was the relevant authority within Chapter 17, given that the State of Queensland was not a party to the proceedings.

The court ordered that the preliminary questions be answered as follows: (a) Yes, the Brisbane City Council is an authority of a State; (b) Yes, the exploitation of the invention was for the services of the State; (c) Yes, the Council had authorised Davies Shephard Pty Ltd in writing; (d) The authorisation was effective from 14 February 1994; and (e) The court declined to answer whether the Council was the relevant authority within Chapter 17. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the preliminary questions.