Nintendo Company Ltd v. Centronics Systems Pty Ltd And Ors
(1994) 181 CLR 134(1994) 121 ALR 577
(1994) 68 ALJR 537
(1994) 28 IPR 431
(1994) AIPC 91-077
[1994] HCA 27
Nintendo Company Ltd
v Centronics Systems Pty Ltd And Ors
Judges:
Mason CJ; Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Dawson J
Judgment date: 16 June 1994
Order
Appeal allowed.
Application for cross-appeal refused.
Parties to bring in agreed draft minutes of further orders (including orders in respect of costs in accordance with the reasons for judgment) on or before 30 June 1994.
If the parties are unable to reach agreement, written submissions as to the appropriate orders to be made to be filed and served by the parties on or before 14 July 1994. Parties to have liberty to file and serve written submissions in reply on or before 28 July 1994.
The proceedings stood over to a date to be fixed.
Centronics Systems Pty Ltd v Nintendo Co. Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 13.
See s19.
World Intellectual Property Organization, 26 May 1989.
See, Commonwealth, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 3 November 1988, at 2397.
See Semiconductor Chip Protection Act 1984 (US) (17 USC s901-s914); Act Concerning the Circuit Layout of a Semiconductor Integrated Circuit (Law No 43, 1985) (Japan); Directive on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products 87/54/EEC, [1987] OJ L24/36 (European Community); Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989 (UK).
Apparently an abbreviation of 'Eligible Layout rights'.
Commonwealth, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 3 November 1988, at 2397, and see, generally, Lahore, Intellectual Property in Australia: Copyright Law, (1988) at para9.20.380; Abbott, 'Introductory Note to Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits', (1989) 28 International Legal Materials 1477 at 1477-1478.
See s49 and the Schedule and, generally, Avel Pty Ltd v Wells (1992) 108 ALR 97 at 100-101.
See s5 of the 1989 Act. This definition was subsequently amended by s41 of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1990 (Cth), assented to on 21 December 1990.
s5.
See, ibid., definitions of 'eligible layout', 'eligible person' and 'eligible foreign country'.
See, ibid., definition of 'protection period'.
Centronics Systems Pty Ltd v Nintendo Co Ltd (1992) 111 ALR at 57-58.
ibid. at 58.
ibid. at 57.
(1981) 147 CLR 297 at 320-321 per Mason and Wilson JJ.
(1992) 111 ALR at 57.
ibid. at 58.
References to sale in the context of s8(1) in the reasons for judgment include offering or exposing for sale.
See the Act, s49 and the Schedule.
i.e. the exclusive right to exploit the layout commercially in Australia.
See, in particular, the Act, s21 (private use), s22 (research or teaching purposes) and s23 (evaluation or analysis).
s16.
i.e. an eligible layout which is within its protection period and whose owner has the exclusive rights contained in s17.
See, e.g., Designs Act 1906 (Cth), s32B(2); Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth), s99(1); Patents Act 1952 (Cth), s124 (now Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s123
By the heading to s20 (not 'part of the Act': Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s13(3)
See current s20(3) (above).
See Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s8(c); and see Esber v The Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 430 at 440.
But note that s27(3) of the Act then, as now, restricted liability for infringement to an account of profits in respect of the infringement if it was 'established that ... the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the act constituting the infringement was an infringement'. It is not necessary to consider what practical operation s27(3) will have in the case of an act which constitutes an infringement by reason of s19(3).
Attorney-General (Cth) v Schmidt (1961) 105 CLR 361 at 371-372 per Dixon CJ
See, generally, Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 68 ALJR 216 at 221, 225, 230, 248-249; 119 ALR 577 at 586-587, 592, 599, 625-626; Re DPP; Ex parte Lawler (1994) 68 ALJR 289 at 290-291, 292, 295, 301-302; 119 ALR 655 at 657-658, 659, 663, 673; Health Insurance Commission v Peverill (1994) 68 ALJR 251 at 266; 119 ALR 675 at 698; Georgiadis v AOTC (1994) 68 ALJR 272 at 275; 119 ALR 629 at 635.
Cf., eg, R v Brislan; Ex parte Williams (1935) 54 CLR 262; Jones v The Commonwealth [No.2] (1965) 112 CLR 206.
See, e.g., Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v The Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 480 at 510; Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 68 ALJR at 222, 225, 231; 119 ALR at 587, 592, 600; Re DPP; Ex parte Lawler (1994) 68 ALJR at 296; 119 ALR at 665; Health Insurance Commission v Peverill (1994) 68 ALJR at 254; 119 ALR at 680-681; Georgiadis v AOTC (1994) 68 ALJR at 275-276; 119 ALR at 635.
See Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259.
Jenkins v The Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 400 at 406; McClintock v The Commonwealth (1947) 75 CLR 1 at 23, 36; P.J. Magennis Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1949) 80 CLR 382 at 401-402, 411, 423; Trade Practices Commission v Tooth and Co. Ltd (1979) 142 CLR 397 at 427, 451-452; Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v The Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 480 at 510-511, 526; Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 68 ALJR 216 at 237; 119 ALR 577 at 608.
(1953) 87 CLR 501 at 518-519. See also Attorney-General (Cth) v Schmidt (1961) 105 CLR 361 at 372-373; Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 68 ALJR at 236-237; 119 ALR at 608-609.
Health Insurance Commission v Peverill (1994) 68 ALJR 251 at 261-262; 119 ALR 675 at 690-691.
(1947) 75 CLR 1.
See Attorney-General (Cth) v Schmidt (1961) 105 CLR at 372.
ibid.
(1978) 34 FLR 112 at 148.
(1993) 176 CLR at 510. See also Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1994) 68 ALJR at 222, 225, 231; 119 ALR at 587, 592, 600.