Ainsworth Game Technology Ltd v Michkoroudny [2006] NSWSC 280

Reported Decision : 69 IPR 111

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Ainsworth Game Technology Ltd v Michkoroudny [2006] NSWSC 280

HEARING DATE(S) : 11/04/06

JUDGMENT DATE : 11 April 2006

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq

DECISION : Injunctions granted. Restitution of payouts ordered.

CATCHWORDS : INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY [113]- Confidential information- Gaming machine tester- Using information to obtain payouts from machine- Employer entitled to injunctions and restitution of payouts.

LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995, s 92(2) Gaming Machines Act 2001, s 80

PARTIES : Ainsworth Game Technology Limited (P) Anatoli Michkoroudny (D)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2272/04

COUNSEL : R K Weaver (P) No appearance for defendant

SOLICITORS : McCabe Terrill (P)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Tuesday 11 April 2006

2272/04 – AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY LIMITED v MICHKOROUDNY JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff manufactures and supplies gaming machines. These machines are installed in clubs and other places and provide amusement to patrons as well as revenue for the clubs and for the plaintiff. The machines operate on the basis that their payouts are capped and that each player has an equal chance of success. 2 The defendant was employed by the plaintiff as a software tester. As such he had access to information which he was told was confidential which would allow him to obtain payouts from the plaintiff's machines at clubs other than in the ordinary course of the machines' operations. 3 The evidence shows that the defendant has now been dismissed from his employment. He was caught on video camera with a female accomplice at four different clubs obtaining payouts of close to $48,000. He was charged with gaining an advantage from knowing a machine had faulty computer programming under s 80 of the Gaming Machines Act 2001. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted by Magistrate Horler: he appealed to the District Court and his Honour Judge Hosking confirmed the conviction. That evidence is admissible under s 92(2) of the Evidence Act 1995. 4 The defendant did not appear at the hearing though he had initially filed a defence. The evidence of the closed circuit cameras showing the defendant's activities, the evidence of the officers of the plaintiff and the evidence of the convictions establishes that the defendant must have used the confidential information he gained in the plaintiff's employment to obtain this advantage. 5 In my view the plaintiff is entitled to the injunctions it seeks to further protect its confidential information as well as an order that the defendant pay the sum of $61,091.27 being the amount which the plaintiff has had to reimburse the clubs concerned plus interest. 6 I thus will make orders in accordance with the short minutes which I have initialled and placed with the papers. The exhibits may be retained.