Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Konami Australia Pty Limited (No 3) [2022] FCA 1373 File number: NSD 1429 of 2011
Judgment of: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 18 November 2022
Catchwords: PATENTS – account of profits – apportionment of profits – availability of apportionment – characterisation of invention – consideration of form of claims – consideration of substance of the invention – whether broadest claim for an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") including feature game with proportional trigger or to feature game with proportional trigger – whether substance of invention an EGM, a feature game with a proportional trigger or a proportional trigger – apportionment of profit made on sale of EGMs and conversion kits including feature game with proportional trigger – whether apportionment precluded by form of declaratory and injunctive relief – whether apportionment precluded by previous finding that invention was for a manner of manufacture – whether apportionment not available because infringing EGMs and conversion kits would not have been made or sold without a feature game with the proportional trigger – significance of the applicant's commercial embodiments of the patented invention – extent to which their commercial success attributable to invention – allowable deductions – whether respondent entitled to deduction in respect of a proportion of general overheads – whether respondent suffered opportunity cost in making and selling infringing products – whether respondent would have made and sold non-infringing products in place of infringing products – significance of surplus manufacturing capacity – whether allocation method proposed by respondent provides a reasonably acceptable basis for allocating overheads – whether respondent's proposed allocation of overheads should be discounted on basis that alternative non-infringing products would have been less successful than infringing products – whether loss made by respondent in certain financial years should be excluded from profit calculations – whether profit should be calculated on a pre-tax basis – whether respondent should be required to account for future tax benefit – whether award of profits calculated on a pre-tax basis would have that effect – whether adjustment should be made to take account of tax related contingencies – whether damages awarded based on user principle (see below) are an expense attributable to profits from sale of infringing products for which respondent may claim a deduction in calculating profit DAMAGES – compensatory damages in respect of conversion kits supplied by respondent free of charge – calculation of damages based on user principle – whether as a matter of discretion no damages should be awarded due to mixed nature of applicant's election – consideration of expert evidence and various licence agreements relating to reasonable royalty rate – consideration of other relevant terms of hypothetical licence governing circumstances in which royalty would be payable – circumstances in which no royalty should be payable – additional damages in respect of conversion kits supplied by respondent free of charge – whether evidence established basis for award of additional damages
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