University of Western Australia v Gray (No 20)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court
• Judgment Date: 17 April 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] FCA 498

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

University of Western Australia v Gray (No 20) [2008] FCA 498

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – inventions – inventions made by employees – academic staff of university – employed to research – whether duty to invent – whether implied term in contract conferring rights on university – no duty of non-disclosure – no duty to invent – significant requirement for external funding – no implied term – inventorship – discovery – inventive concept – identification of inventive concept – specification or claim by claim analysis – unjustified threats of infringement or similar proceedings – claim for constructive trust in patent rights – whether “similar proceedings” – not similar proceedings – no unjustified threats

CONTRACT – employment – implied term – invention – academic staff – employment to teach and research – whether duty to invent – whether implied term vesting invention rights in university – no implied term

DELEGATED LEGISLATION - regulations – university – regulation making power – promulgation requirement as condition of operation – content of requirement – construction – whether regulations may validly acquire intellectual property rights from academic staff – presumption against alienation or interference with property rights – no valid authority to acquire or interfere with property rights by regulation – not related to control or management of university property

TRADE PRACTICES - misleading or deceptive conduct – representations – future matters – application of s 51A – requirement to plead or demonstrate implied representations as to reasonable grounds

CORPORATIONS – directors – director’s duties – failure to disclose material information to company in due diligence prior to float – information indicating risk of claim against intellectual property held by company – loss of opportunity to company to avoid claim by negotiation or otherwise

TORT - defamation – qualified privilege – malice – letter of demand – whether content and timing of letter of demand actuated by malice

The University of Western Australia Act 1911 (WA) s 3, s 16E, s 31,

The University of Western Australia Act Amendment Act 1929(WA) s 2, s 3

The University of Western Australia Act Amendment Act 1970 (WA)

The University of Western Australia Act Amendment Act 1975 (WA

Interpretation Act 1918 (WA) s 36

Patents Act 1952 (Cth) s 69, s 152(1), s 34, s 26,

Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 15, s 32

Patents Act 1960 (Cth)s 5

Patents Act 1969 (Cth)

Patents Regulations

Intellectual Property Regulations

Adamson v Kenworthy (1932) 49 RPC 57

Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 171

AMP Inc v Utile Pty Ltd (1971) 45 ALJR 123

Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v ResCare Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 205

Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v ResCare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1

Aponte Inc v Welcome Foundation Ltd [2002] 4 SCR 153

Boll Acceptance Corporation Ltd v GWA Ltd (1983) 50 ALR 242

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Failing & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524

British Celanese Ltd v Moncrieff (1948) 1 Ch 564

British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ltd v Lind (1917) 34 RPC 101

British Siphon Co v Homewood (No 2) [1956] 73 RPC 225

Burroughs Welcome Co v Barr Laboratories Inc (1994) 40 F 3d 1223

Charles Selz Ltd’s Application (1954) 71 RPC 158

CI Covington Fund Inc v White (2000) 10 BLR (3d) 173

CJ Burland Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Meat Industry Board (1968) 120 CLR 400

Collag Corp v Merck and Co Inc [2003] FSR 15

Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232

Comstock Canada v Electec Ltd (1991) FTR 241

Dalzell v Duaber Manufacturing Co 149 US 315

Durack v Associated Pool Builders Pty Ltd (1983) 1 IPR 545

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson (2005) 223 ALR 123; [2005] WASCA 144

Edisonia Ltd v Forse (1908) 25 RPC 546

Electrolux Ltd v Hudson [1977] FSR 312

Empress Abalone Ltd v Langdon (2000) 2 ERNZ 53

Florida State Board of Education v Bourne (1942) 150 Fla 323

Fine Industrial Commodities Ltd v Powling (1954) 71 RPC 253

French v Mason [1999] FSR 597

Fubilan Catering Services Ltd v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1205

Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82

Goddin and Rennie’s Application [1996] RPC 141

Greater Glasgow Health Board’s Application [1996] RPC 207 at 222

Greville v Williams (1906) 4 CLR 694

Gunter v Stream 573 F 2d 77 (1978)

Hapgood v Hewitt 119 US 226

Harris’ Patent [1985] RPC 19

Henry Bros (Magherafelt Ltd v Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office I [1997] RPC 693

Hicton’s Patent Syndicate v Patents and Machine Improvements Co Ltd (1909) 26 RPC 339

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41

Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611

Kimberley Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1

Kwan v Queensland Corrective Services Commission (1994) 31 IPR 25

Lamb v Evans [1893] 1 Ch 218

Lane-Fox v Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Co (1892) 29 RPC 413

Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2007) 235 ALR 202

Madey v Duke University (1999) US Dist Lexis 21379

Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F 3d 1351

Markem Corporation v Zipher Ltd (2005) RPC 31

Marshall and Naylor’s Patent (1900) 17 RPC 553

Mellor v William Beardmore & Co Ltd (1927) 44 RPC 175

Mueller Brass Co v Reading Industries Inc 325 F Supp 1357 (1972)

National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252

Nottingham University v Fishel [2000] ICR 1462

Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd (2008) 75 IPR 1

Quickenden v O’Connor (2001) 109 FCR 243

LH Hoare Pty Ltd’s Application [1976] Tas SR 156

Robb v Green [1895] 1 QB 215 315

Rogers v Commissioner of Patents (1911)10 CLR 701

Sabaf SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd [2005] RPC 10

Seanix Technology Inc v Ircha 53 CBLC (3d) 257

Solomons v United States (1890) 137 US 342

Spencer Industries Pty Ltd v Collins (2003) 58 IPR 425

Spencer Industries Pty Ltd v Collins (2002) 54 IPR 434

Spiroll Corp Ltd v Putti (1975) 64 DLR (3d) 280, aff’d (1976) 77 DLR (3d) 761

Stack v Davies Shephard Pty Ltd (2001) 108 FCR 422

State of Florida v Neal (1943) 152 Fla 582

Staeng Ltd’s Patents [1996] RPC 183

Stanlec Fibre Optics Ltd’s Application [2005] RPC 15

Stephenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10

Sterling Engineering Co Ltd v Patchett [1955] AC 534

Sython BC v SmithKline Beecham plc [2006] 1 All ER 685

Triplex Safety Glass Co v Scorah [1937] 1 Ch 211

United States v Dubilier Condenser Corporation (1933) 289 US 178

University of Southampton’s Application [2005] RPC 11

University of Southampton’s Application [2006] RPC 21

University of Western Australia v Gray (No 17) [2007] FCA 924

Victoria University of Technology v Wilson (2004) 60 IPR 392

Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59

Worthington Pumping Engine Co v Moore (1903) 20 RPC 41

Yang v Owners-Strata Plan No 3529 (2001) 54 NSWLR 60

Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone Poulenc International Holdings Inc [2008] 1 All ER 425

Viziballs’s Application [1988] RPC 213

Carter, Peden and Tolhurst, Contract Law in Australia (5^th ed, Butterworths, 2007)

Chandler PA “Employees’ Inventions: Inventorship and Ownership” [1997] 5 EIPR 262

Corcoran S, First Principles in the Interpretation of University States (2000) 4 Flinders Journal of Law Reform p 143

Cornish W and Llewellyn DM, Intellectual Property – Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (6^th ed, Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)

La Roche, Collard and Chernys, “Appropriating Invention: The Enforceability of University Intellectual Property Policies” (2007) 20 IPJ 135

Monnotti and Ricketson, Universities and Intellectual Property (2003, Oxford University Press)

Pearce and Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (6^th ed, 2006 Lexis Nexis Butterworths)

Raper E, “Employee Ownership of Inventions – A Re-examination “ (2004) 17 AJLL 81

Ricketson S, The Law of Intellectual Property (Law Book Co, 1984)

Phillips and Hoolahan, Employees’ Inventions in the United Kingdom – Law and Practice (1982) ESC Publishing, Oxford, Ch 2

Swan K, Patent Rights in an Employee’s Invention (1959) 75 LQR 77

Thorley S, Terrell on the Law of Patents (16^th ed, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA v BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY, SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122), CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REGISTERED NUMBER 1001005),

BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY v THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, and YAN CHEN

SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122) v BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY and CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REGISTERED NUMBER 1001005)

WAD292 OF 2004

FRENCH J

17 APRIL 2008

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD292 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Applicant

AND:

BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY First Respondent SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122) Second Respondent CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REGISTERED NUMBER 1001005) Third Respondent BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY First Cross-Claimant THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA First Cross-Respondent to First Cross-Claim YAN CHEN Second Cross-Respondent to First Cross-Claim SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122) Second Cross-Claimant THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Cross Respondent to Second Cross-Claim SIRTEX MEDICAL LIMITED (ACN 078 166 122) Third Cross-Claimant BRUCE NATHANIEL GRAY First Cross-Respondent to Third Cross-Claim) CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INCORPORATED (REGISTERED NUMBER 1001005) Second Cross-Respondent to Third Cross-Claim

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 APRIL 2008
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the application.

3. The first respondent’s cross-claim against the applicant be dismissed.

4. The first...