Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34 Citation: Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34

Appeal from: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1495

Parties: RIAD ALLAM v ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 001 660 715), ARISTOCRAT INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 148 158), ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES INC, GLOBAL GAMING SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 548 589), ANTHONY EDWARD ANDREWS, IMPACT GAMING PTY LTD (ACN 109 299 461) and FRANCIS GEORGE BERNARD CRAGEN GLOBAL GAMING SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 548 589), ANTHONY EDWARD ANDREWS, IMPACT GAMING PTY LTD (ACN 109 299 461) and FRANCIS GEORGE BERNARD CRAGEN v ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 001 660 715), ARISTOCRAT INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 148 158) and ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES INC

File numbers: NSD 292 of 2010 NSD 293 of 2010

Judges: BENNETT, MIDDLETON and YATES JJ

Date of judgment: 21 March 2012

Catchwords: COPYRIGHT – infringement – gaming machine games and components – circumstantial evidence – whether infringement by dealing established EVIDENCE – whether primary judge erred by varying rulings made under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) at the time of final submissions when the course of evidence had been completed EVIDENCE – whether primary judge erred in the use of evidence not tendered as proof of facts stated in them or as tendency evidence – where evidence not relevant except as to credit or the existence of a joint venture DAMAGES – whether liability for compensatory damages established on the evidence DAMAGES – additional damages – whether the amount of additional damages was excessive DAMAGES – whether damages should have been awarded in favour of all applicants – where agreement licensing relevant copyright in favour of certain applicants executed after time of infringements and commencement of proceedings