Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2019] FCAFC 115 Appeal from: Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd (2017) 133 IPR 1; [2017] FCA 1403
File number: NSD 348 of 2018
Judges: GREENWOOD, JAGOT AND YATES JJ
Date of judgment: 5 July 2019
Catchwords: PATENTS – appellants/cross-respondents ("Calidad") importers and sellers of printer cartridges modified or "repurposed" by a third party – first respondent – first cross-appellant ("Seiko Epson") the patentee of two patents in suit said to have been infringed by Calidad's conduct – consideration of the doctrine of implied licence – consideration of the scope and content of any licence implied by law – consideration of the doctrine of repair – consideration of the nature, type and degree of modifications made to the original Seiko Epson cartridges by the third party modifier – consideration of whether the modifications fall within the scope and content of any implied licence – consideration of whether the modifications fall within the notion of repairs to "the product" sold by the patentee or its agents – consideration of whether the modifications amount to a "making" of a new product
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 3, 13, 40, 120, 144 and Sch 1 Patents Act 1903 (Cth) s 62
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (2018) 356 ALR 582 Austshade Pty Ltd v Boss Shade Pty Ltd (2016) 118 IPR 93 Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v Isler [1906] 1 Ch. 605 Betts v Willmott (1871) LR 6 Ch App 239 Boston Store of Chicago v American Graphophone Co., 246 US 8 (1918) Bristol-Myers v Beecham Group [1974] AC 646 Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd [1997] AC 728 Copyright Agency Ltd v State of New South Wales (2008) 233 CLR 279 Incandescent Gas Light Co. Ltd v Cantelo 12 RPC 262 Impression Products Inc v Lexmark International Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) Interstate Parcel Express Co. Pty Ltd v Time-Life International (Nederlands) B.V. (1977) 138 CLR 534 Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons Inc., 568 US 519 (2013) National Phonograph Company of Australia Limited v Menck (1908) 7 CLR 481 National Phonograph Company of Australia Limited v Menck (1911) 12 CLR 15 Quanta Computer, Inc., v LG Electronics, Inc., 553 US 617 (2008) Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2013] RPC 16 Sirdar Rubber Co Ltd v Wallington Weston & Co (1907) 24 RPC 539 Solar Thompson Engineering Co Ltd v Barton [1977] RPC 537 Société Anonyme des Manufactures de Glaces v Tilghman's Patent Sand Blast Co. (1883) 25 Ch. D. 1 United States v General Elec. Co., 272 US 476 (1926) United States v Univis Lens Co., 316 US 241 (1942) United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd [2001] RPC 24
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate