Northern Territory v Collins
[2008] HCA 49Northern Territory
vCollins
High Court of Australia
Judges:
Gummow ACJ
Kirby J
Hayne J
Heydon J
Crennan J
Judgment date: 16 October 2008
Orders
146. The appeal should be allowed with costs.
147. The order of the Full Court of the Federal Court made on 20 September 2007 should be set aside and in its place it should be ordered that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.
Representation
S J Gageler SC with G R Nicholson for the appellant (instructed by Clayton Utz Lawyers)
G O'L Reynolds SC with N R Murray and R C A Higgins for the respondents (instructed by De Silva Hebron)
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 .
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 at 357-358 [51]-[53]; [1999] HCA 9 ; cf X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2007) 226 CLR 630 at 658 [99]-[102]; [2007] HCA 4 .
(2007) 161 FCR 549 at 600.
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 619.
The authorities include Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane (1987) 162 CLR 514 at 518, 523, 532, 547; [1987] HCA 12 ; Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1 at 45 [143]; [1999] HCA 66 ; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 at 95 [132]; [2001] HCA 22 ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 359 [111]; [2001] HCA 30 ; Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 218 CLR 1 at 6 [10], 17-18 [57]; [2003] HCA 69 ; Truong v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 122 at 160 [92], 174 [144]; [2004] HCA 10 ; R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67 at 102 [108]; [2005] HCA 37 ; X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2007) 226 CLR 630 at 662 [112].
(1959) 102 CLR 252 ; [1959] HCA 67 .
21 Jac 1 , c 3.
cf Patents Act 1977 (UK), s 60(1) and in the United States, 35 USC §271.
(2007) 161 FCR 549 at 587.
cf (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 578.
(2007) 161 FCR 549 at 564-570.
Published in 1984 and entitled Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia. See reasons of Hayne J at [44]-[45]. See also reasons of Crennan J at [106], [108], [109].
35 USC, ch 28.
Notes, "Contributory Infringement and Misuse - The Effect of Section 271 of the Patent Act of 1952", (1953) 66 Harvard Law Review 909 at 915.
Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd ed (1957), vol II at 2457.
The Macquarie Dictionary, Federation edition (2001), vol II at 1834.
(2007) 161 FCR 549 at 582-583.
(1992) 111 ALR 205 at 242-243.
(2000) 97 FCR 524 at 556-559 [87]-[97].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 595 [156].
See Walker v Alemite Corporation (1933) 49 CLR 643 at 658 per Dixon J; [1933] HCA 39 .
Australia, Industrial Property Advisory Committee, Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia, 29 August 1984 at 23 [3.2].
Recommendation 33: Australia, Industrial Property Advisory Committee, Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia, 29 August 1984 at 67.
"Government Response to the Report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, 'Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia'", Official Journal of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs, vol 56, no 47, 18 December 1986, 1462 at 1477.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Patents Bill 1990 (Cth) at 28.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Patents Bill 1990 at 28.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Patents Bill 1990 at 28.
"Government Response to the Report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, 'Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia'", Official Journal of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs, vol 56, no 47, 18 December 1986, 1462 at 1477.
cf (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 577 [80] per French J.
cf (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 577-578 [81]-[82].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 .
Set out later in these reasons at [72].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 620 [30].
The definition of "Crown lands" in s 3 encompassed land formerly of the Commonwealth which became vested in the Northern Territory under s 69(2) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth).
An activity which was subject to penalty if conducted without a lease, licence or lawful authority, as to which see s 102 of the Crown Lands Act.
Defined as the "Free on Board price at Darwin received by the licensee for its products" in accordance with "documentation submitted to the Department, Lands, Planning and Environment".
Conditions 20 and 21 were substantively the same as Conditions 14 and 15 of the first licence, set out above.
Under O 29 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules.
The excised part of the question concerned an issue under s 117(2)(a) which was not pressed by Mr and Mrs Collins at trial: Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 616 [10].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 616 [9].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 617 [15].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 617 [16].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 619 [25].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 619 [26].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 620 [30]. The appeal to the Full Court was conducted on the assumption that this concession had not been made: Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 558 [21].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 621 [34].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 621 [39].
Collins v Northern Territory (2006) 70 IPR 614 at 622 [45].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 586 [119].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 587 [124].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 596 [158].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 596 [159].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 576 [76].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 582 [95] following Australian Softwood Forests Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW); Ex rel Corporate Affairs Commission (1981) 148 CLR 121 ; [1981] HCA 49 ; Vanstone v Malura Pty Ltd (1988) 50 SASR 110 ; Corporate Affairs Commission v ASC Timber Pty Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 577 ; Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v Shand (1992) 27 NSWLR 426 .
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 582-583 [99].
Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 583 [101] per French J, 596-597 [163] per Branson and Sundberg JJ.
At [72]-[73].
Patents Act 1903 (Cth), s 4; Patents Act 1952 (Cth), s 6.
See for example Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 (UK), s 46 and Patents and Designs Act 1907 (UK), s 93.
21 Jac I c 3.
Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vict) (2001) 207 CLR 72 at 77 [9] per Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, 89 [46] per Kirby J; [2001] HCA 49 ; Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment (2005) 224 CLR 193 at 206 [30] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ, 240-241 [167]-[168] per Kirby J; [2005] HCA 58 ; Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Le (2007) 232 CLR 562 at 586 [85] per Kirby and Crennan JJ; [2007] HCA 52 .
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390 at 397 per Dixon CJ; [1955] HCA 27 , quoted with approval in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 381 [69] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ; [1998] HCA 28 ; see also Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss 15AA and 15AB.
Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a at 7b [ 76 ER 637 at 638].
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408 per Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ; [1997] HCA 2 .
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529 at 538 [22] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ; [2006] HCA 11 .
Hilder v Dexter [1902] AC 474 at 477 per Earl of Halsbury LC.
Blanco White, Patents for Inventions, 4th ed (1974) at 591-592 [14-38]. See also Aldous, Falconer and Aldous, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 11th ed (1965) at 135 [341].
Townsend v Haworth (1875) 12 Ch D 831 (n); Briggs & Co v Lardeur and Lambert (1884) 1 RPC 126 ; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v David Moseley & Sons Ltd [1904] 1 Ch 612 ; Sarason v Fr é nay [1914] 2 Ch 474 at 480-481 per Warrington J; Cincinnati Grinders Inc v BSA Tools Ltd (1930) 48 RPC 33 ; Walker v Alemite Corporation (1933) 49 CLR 643 ; [1933] HCA 39 ; Firth Industries Ltd v Polyglas Engineering Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 489 at 497 per Stephen J; [1975] HCA 25 ; Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd v Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd (1999) 164 ALR 239 ; cf Windsurfing International Inc v Petit [1984] 2 NSWLR 196 at 207 per Waddell J (the sale of a complete set of parts in kit form which when assembled came within the claims of the patent).
Innes v Short and Beal (1898) 15 RPC 449 ; Belegging-en Exploitatiemaatschappij Lavender BV v Whitten Industrial Diamonds Ltd [1979] FSR 59 at 66-67 per Buckley LJ.
Incandescent Gas Light Co Ltd v New Incandescent Mantle Co (1898) 15 RPC 81 ; Morton-Norwich Products Inc v Intercen Ltd [1976] FSR 513 at 521, 524-526 per Graham J; Belegging-en Exploitatiemaatschappij Lavender BV v Whitten Industrial Diamonds Ltd [1979] FSR 59 at 64 per Buckley LJ; Rotocrop International Ltd v Genbourne Ltd [1982] FSR 241 .
Sykes v Howarth (1879) 12 Ch D 826 .
See, for example, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v David Moseley & Sons Ltd [1904] 1 Ch 612 at 618 per Vaughan Williams LJ.
4th ed (1974) at 99 [3-210]; see also Cornish and Llewelyn, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 6th ed (2007) at 260 [6-17]; Dufty and Lahore, Lahore Patents, Trade Marks and Related Rights, vol 1 at 18,359 [18,270].
(1933) 49 CLR 643 at 658.
Industrial Property Advisory Committee, Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia, 29 August 1984.
IPAC Report at 12-14 [1.2], 22-27 [3.1]-[3.5].
15 USC §§1-7.
15 USC §§12-27.
448 US 176 (1980).
IPAC Report at 66 [14.2].
IPAC Report at 67 [14.2].
"Government Response to the Report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, 'Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia'", Official Journal of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs, 18 December 1986, Vol 56, No 47, 1462.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Patents Bill 1990 (Cth) at 28 [170].
"Government Response to the Report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, 'Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia'", Official Journal of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs, 18 December 1986, Vol 56, No 47, 1462 at 1477.
448 US 176 at 187 (1980).
448 US 176 at 187-197 (1980).
448 US 176 at 197 (1980).
Article 26 of the Community Patent Convention covered "indirect infringement" and is set out by French J in Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 568-569 [48].
Great Britain, The British Patent System: Report of the Committee to Examine the Patent System and Patent Law, (1970) Cmnd 4407.
Department of Trade, Patent Law Reform, (1975) Cmnd 6000.
Department of Trade, Patent Law Reform, (1975) Cmnd 6000 at 5 [18].
(1992) 111 ALR 205 .
(2000) 97 FCR 524 .
(1992) 111 ALR 205 at 242-243.
(1994) 50 FCR 1 at 24.
(1994) 30 IPR 479 at 495 per Gummow J.
(2000) 97 FCR 524 at 556-559 [87]-[97].
Monotti, "Contributory Infringement of a Process Patent under the Patents Act 1990: Does it Exist after Rescare?", (1995) 6 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 217 at 226-228.
(2000) 97 FCR 524 at 556-559 [87]-[97].
(2000) 97 FCR 524 at 558-559 [95]. The decision has been followed in Leonardis v Theta Developments Pty Ltd (2000) 78 SASR 376 .
Explanatory Memorandum to the Patents Bill 1990 (Cth) at 5 [23].
Blanco White, Patents for Inventions, 4th ed (1974) at 96 [3-207].
See generally Blanco White, Patents for Inventions, 4th ed (1974) at 96-98 [3-208] and Walton and Laddie, Patent Law of Europe and the United Kingdom, (1983), vol 1 at II [2060].
As do ss 60(1)(c) and 100(1) of the Patents Act 1977 (UK). See also Thorley, Miller, Burkill, Birss and Campbell, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 16th ed (2006) at 313 [8-28].
It can be noted that O 17 r 1 of the Federal Court Rules permits the Court to make orders for inspection of property including orders for "the observation of any process".
See the quotation from Blanco White at [103].
Under s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies it was "the true and first inventor" who was entitled to "the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures" which "others ... shall not use".
See also reasons of Hayne J at [34].
Thorley, Miller, Burkill, Birss and Campbell, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 16th ed (2006) at 315 [8-32].
Cf Rescare (1992) 111 ALR 205 at 242-243 per Gummow J.
448 US 176 (1980).
See also Butt, Land Law, 5th ed (2006) at 61-62 [336].
Asciano Services Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2008] HCA 46 .
In re Ainslie; Swinburn v Ainslie (1885) 30 Ch D 485 ; In re Llewellin; Llewellin v Williams (1887) 37 Ch D 317 at 324 per Stirling J.
This was an application of the maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit.
Dashwood v Magniac [1891] 3 Ch 306 at 352 per Lindley LJ, 358-359 per Bowen LJ.
R v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR 327 at 344 per Mason J; [1982] HCA 69 .
At [64], [66]-[68].
(2007) 161 FCR 549 at 596 [158] per Branson and Sundberg JJ.
J B van Benthem, "The Rights conferred by a Community Patent under the Community Patent Convention", in Pennington (ed), European Patents at the Crossroads, (1976) 119 at 132; Savignon, "Report on the Results of the Luxembourg Convention", in Pennington (ed), European Patents at the Crossroads, (1976) 9 at 14.
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed, vol XVI at 522. See also Thorley, Miller, Burkill, Birss and Campbell, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 16th ed (2006) at 317 [8-37].
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed, vol XVI at 522 and Macquarie Dictionary, Federation ed, vol II at 1834.
Benyamini, Patent Infringement in the European Community, (1993) at 234-235 [9.8.3]. As already noted, Art 26 of the Community Patent Convention and s 60(3) of the Patents Act 1977 (UK) refer to a "staple commercial product"; Art L613-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code refers to "produits qui se trouvent couramment dans le commerce", as to which see Regicentre v Isoka, International Celomer et al (1989) 20 IIC 217 ; Art 10(2) of the German Patent Law (as translated by the World Intellectual Property Organisation ("WIPO")) refers to "staple commercial products"; Art 73(2) of the Netherlands Patents Act (as translated by WIPO) refers to "products which are generally available in commerce".
See Moy, Moy's Walker on Patents, 4th ed, vol 5, §15:23 at 15-143.
See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd 545 US 913 at 932 (2005) per Souter J.
Roughton, "Infringement", in Fysh et al (eds), The Modern Law of Patents, (2005) 17 at 26 [2.11]. See also Thorley, Miller, Burkill, Birss and Campbell, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 16th ed (2006) at 317 [8-37].
Cf Collins v Northern Territory (2007) 161 FCR 549 at 595 [156] per Branson and Sundberg JJ.
Copyright notice
© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia
You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).
