The University of Sydney v ResMed Ltd (No 2)

The University of Sydney brought an action against ResMed Ltd, contesting aspects of a settlement and licence agreement (FASOC) and a confidential disclosure agreement (CDA). The dispute centres around the University's allegations that ResMed misappropriated intellectual property related to a nasal mask invention, specifically a "membrane mask" that moulds to the wearer's facial contours. The University claims that the mask's design and related information were disclosed to ResMed under the CDA, and that ResMed subsequently used this information to develop and market a competing product. The court was required to determine whether the University's statement of claim adequately pleaded the necessary facts to support its claims and whether the pleadings complied with procedural rules.

The court assessed the University's statement of claim, focusing on the clarity and sufficiency of the allegations. The University's use of the term "Membrane Mask" was scrutinized for ambiguity, but the court found the term sufficiently defined and consistently used. The court also examined whether the "Information" disclosed to ResMed was adequately described in the pleadings and whether it was appropriately classified as intellectual property, confidential information, or both. Additionally, the court addressed the procedural issue of annexures being referenced instead of the facts being pleaded in the body of the statement of claim.

The court concluded that while the University's statement of claim contained some ambiguities and procedural errors, it provided a sufficient basis for the claims. The court granted the University leave to file a second further amended statement of claim to correct these issues. The court emphasized the importance of clarity and procedural correctness in pleadings, while also noting that both parties had achieved some success in their respective motions. Consequently, the court dismissed both the University's and ResMed's motions for costs.

The court ordered that the University have until 30 January 2009 to file and serve a second further amended statement of claim. The proceeding was stood over to 6 February 2009 for directions, and the University's and ResMed's motions were dismissed without costs.