Marco teórico

To put the issues addressed in this chapter in context, it is first necessary to outline related aspects of standing law. Patent licences, at their most basic, are a type of contract that operates as a mechanism for patentees to electively permit others to practise their invention. Within the broad confines of laws relevant to licences, such as competition and contract law, patentees have freedom to contract. Thus, they may include a variety of terms including those directed to panoplied or partitioned exclusive licences. Section 120(2) of the Patents Act specifies that, although a patentee may begin infringement proceedings alone, when an exclusive licensee initiates an action, the patentee must be ‘joined as a defendant unless joined as a plaintiff’.14 _{The Australian Law Reform}

Commission, in their report on gene patents and human health, stated that, in effect, an exclusive licensee ‘stands in the shoes of the patent holder, subject to any additional terms relating to enforcement of patent rights in the licence agreement (for example, allocation of any damages awards, liability for the costs of any infringement proceedings, or the right to control proceedings)’.15

Section 120(3) continues that, ‘[a] patentee joined as a defendant is not liable for costs unless the patentee enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.’16

There are various reasons why it is appropriate for patentees to be joined in any proceedings relating to their patents, including that it makes them bound by the judgment, avoids res judicata issues, gives them an opportunity to be heard, and allows discovery of documents that may affect validity, infringement, or the licensee’s standing.17 _{However, due to circumstance, they need not enter a plea}

because they may have no interest in the case that is being pursued by the licensee. Such a situation could arise, for example, if a patentee licenses a patent in return for lump sum payments not linked

14 _{Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 120(2).}

15 _{Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health, Report No 99 (2004) vol 1,}

(ALRC Report 99) 230 [9.40] n 62.

16 _{Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 120(3).}

17 _{Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.13; the application of joinder rules, Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 9.02–9.05, are}

consider in more detail below.

36

to the success of the product protected by the patent. In this scenario they will receive payments regardless of any enforcement.

Section 187 of the Patents Act requires that licences, assignments and other particulars of patents must be registered.18 _{In Stack v Brisbane City Council (No 2),}19 _{Drummond J held that the combined}

interpretation of ss 120 and 187 meant that an unregistered assignee could not ordinarily bring an infringement action in their own name,20 _{but went on to outline instances in which an unregistered}

assignee could obtain relief.21 _{However, the position is different for exclusive licensees. In Grant v}

Australian Temporary Fencing Pty Ltd,22 _{Holmes J held that because the definition of ‘exclusive}

licensee’ does not include a reference to registration, it is not necessary for a licensee to be registered for them to initiate infringement actions.23 _{Despite this, s 195(1) states, ‘[t]he Register is}

prima facie evidence of any particular registered in it.’24 _{Thus, registration may make it easier for an}

exclusive licensee to initiate an infringement action, as any alleged infringer contesting the licensee’s standing will have to overcome this prima facie evidence. But irrespective of the Register, a licensee will have standing if they can prove their licence is exclusive.

Three further ancillary aspects of licences should be noted. First, parties to a licence cannot retrospectively change the rights and obligations between them.25 _{This means that a contract written}

as a non-exclusive licence and which operates as one, cannot be amended to state that at any time in the past it operated as an exclusive licence. Second, whether a licence is sole, exclusive, non- exclusive, or actually an assignment, will be determined by a court regardless of its title.26 _Generally

speaking, this assessment will be based on rights conferred, wording of the contract and the objective intention of the parties.27 _{Third, eligibility for financial relief is limited to time periods in}

which parties have standing.28

18 _{Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 187(1); Patent Regulations 1991 (Cth) 19.1(1).} 19 _{Stack v Brisbane City Council (No 2) (1996) 67 FCR 510.}

20 _{Ibid 513; see also Townsend Controls Pty Ltd v Gilead (1989) 16 IPR 469, 471–2 (van Doussa J).} 21 _{Ibid 513–5.}

22 _{Grant v Australian Temporary Fencing Pty Ltd (2003) 59 IPR 170.} 23 _{Ibid 179–80.}

24 _{Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 195(1); it is also worth noting that regardless of registration, under contract law, an exclusive}

licensee will usually have standing to pursue a patentee for relief from infringement via breach of contract, see, Hassall v Wright (1870) LR 10 Eq 509, 513.

25 _{Black & Decker Inc v GMCA Pty Ltd (No 2) (2008) 76 IPR 99, 125 (Heerey J).}

26 _{For example see, Reid v Moreland Timber Company Pty Ltd (1946) 73 CLR 1; Re An Application by the Preformed Line}

Products Company for an Extension of Letters Patent No 160999 [1971] ALJR 6, 8.

27 _{See generally, Reid v Moreland Timber Company Pty Ltd (1946) 73 CLR 1; Re An Application by the Preformed Line}

Products Company for an Extension of Letters Patent No 160999 [1971] ALJR 6, 8; KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd v Insta Image Pty Ltd (2007) 71 IPR 615, 637–8.

28 _{Black & Decker Inc v GMCA Pty Ltd (No 2) (2008) 76 IPR 99, 127 (Heerey J); discussing Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock}

Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 112 CLR 25, 36, 41 (Windeyer J).

37