Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 140 Citation: Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 140
Parties: STREETWORX PTY LTD v ARTCRAFT URBAN GROUP PTY LTD and MURRAY JOHN SAINT
File number: VID 853 of 2013
Judge: BEACH J
Date of judgment: 2 March 2015
Catchwords: PATENTS – remedies – infringement of innovation patents – final relief – application for springboard injunction – whether unwarranted advantage procured by infringement – quality of unwarranted advantage – whether infringing integers causally significant to award of contract to respondent – lawful competitive activity of respondent – springboard injunction not warranted – application for orders for delivery up – modification of infringing product by disassembly and reassembly to make non-infringing product – use of non-infringing components of infringing product – delivery up not warranted – applications refused
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 122(1)
Cases cited: Aktiengesellschaft für Autogene Aluminium Schweissung v London Aluminium Co Ltd (No 2) (1920) 37 RPC 153 Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v The Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 480 British United Shoe Machinery Co Ltd v Gimson Shoe Machinery Co Ltd (1928) 45 RPC 85 Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25 Cordell v Second Clanfield Properties Ltd [1969] 2 Ch 9 Crossley v The Derby Gas Light Co (1834) 4 LT Ch 25 Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corporation Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101 Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd (No 2) [2001] RPC 27 Electrical and Musical Industries Ltd and Boonton Research Corporation Ltd v G Kalis (trading as Andy's Radio Supplies) (1937) 54 RPC 5 Generics BV v Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd (Case C-316/95) [1997] RPC 801 Geodesic Constructions Pty Ltd v Gaston (1976) 16 SASR 453 Howes and Burley v Webber (1895) 12 RPC 465 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc (No 3) [2005] FSR 41 Leggatt v Hood's Original Licensees' Darts Accessories Ltd and Hood (1950) 67 RPC 134 Merck Canada Inc v Sigma Pharmaceuticals Plc (No 2) [2013] RPC 35 Mergenthaler Linotype Co v Intertype Ltd (1926) 43 RPC 239 Mergenthaler Linotype Co v Intertype Ltd (1926) 43 RPC 381 Pinefair Pty Ltd v Bedford Industries Rehabilitation Association Inc (1998) 87 FCR 458 Roussel Uclaf v Pan Laboratories Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 316 Siddell v Vickers, Sons and Co Ltd (1888) 5 RPC 81 Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc [2014] RPC 22 Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd [1967] RPC 375 Union Bank of London v Munster (1887) 37 Ch D 51 United Horsenail Co v Stewart & Co (1886) 3 RPC 139 Vavasseur v Krupp (1878) 9 Ch D 351 Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (No 2) (2001) AIPC 91-736
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