Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Embertec Pty Limited v Energy Efficient Technologies Pty Limited [2013] FCA 2 Citation: Embertec Pty Limited v Energy Efficient Technologies Pty Limited [2013] FCA 2
Parties: EMBERTEC PTY LIMITED (ACN 110 367 809) v ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LIMITED (ACN 123 181 439) and STAVROS PAPPAS; ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LIMITED (ACN 123 181 439) v EMBERTEC PTY LIMITED (ACN 110 367 809)
File number: NSD 1167 of 2012
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 4 January 2013
Catchwords: PATENTS – application for interlocutory injunction restraining the infringement of an innovation patent which is a divisional of a parent patent application – whether patentee has a prima facie case of infringement – whether the alleged infringer has established a prima facie case of invalidity – relevant principles discussed – whether the balance of convenience and justice favoured the grant or refusal of the injunction where interlocutory decision likely to have the practical effect of deciding the whole patent case and where the usefulness of the injunction is probably limited to a few months at most
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law, s 18 and s 29(1) Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 18(1A), 40(3), 62, 122, 163 Statute of Monopolies 1623 (21 Jac I, c 3) Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 (Vic), s 15 Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Regulations 2008 (Vic), reg 6(1)(x), Sch 29B
Cases cited: Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2011] HCATrans 341 cited Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 applied Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 applied Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd (2005) 222 ALR 155 applied Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 59 FLR 37 cited Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 2) (2006) 71 IPR 46 followed Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 286 ALR 257 applied Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences (2009) 82 IPR 467 cited Stack v Brisbane City Council (1995) 59 FCR 71 cited Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588 applied
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