Intellectual Property Law and Innovation

The rules of intellectual property law prevent competitors from imitating the innovative appearance or function of products. However, these rules are not derived from one single source, but are found in copyright law, designs law, patents law, trade secrets law and, when it comes to novel appearance, also in passing off and trade marks law.

Bringing together all these rules of intellectual property in a practical format, Intellectual Property Law and Innovation covers the areas of intellectual property law that are most relevant to both product and technological innovation. It surveys intellectual property law relevant to protecting or monopolising novel visual appearance, as well as the novel functions and substantive characteristics of products. It deals with central legal issues relating to copyright in computer programs, as well as in artistic works as relevant to the visual design of products; registered designs law; the equitable action for breach of confidence; patents law; sui generis regimes, including plant breeder’s rights and the law relating to computer chip layouts; and particular aspects of trade marks law relevant to product appearance. It also examines the role of these different areas of the law from the perspective of innovation, including innovation strategy and public policy. In dealing with the law, the book focusses principally on Australia, but also refers occasionally to the law in other jurisdictions, principally in the English-speaking common law world.

This book places intellectual property law in the broader framework of innovation theory and strategy and will therefore benefit law students, legal practitioners, innovation managers, and all those working in the fields of intellectual property law and innovation management.

William van Caenegem is Professor of Law at Bond University.

Intellectual Property Law
and Innovation

William van Caenegem

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521837576

© William van Caenegem 2007

First published 2007

Printed in Australia by Ligare

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

National Library of Australia Cataloguing in Publication data
Caenegem, William van, 1961--
Intellectual property law and innovation.
Bibliography.
Includes index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-52183-757-6 paperback
ISBN-10: 0-52183-757-X paperback
1. Intellectual property (International law) – Textbooks. 2. Intellectual property –
Australia – Textbooks. 3. Technological innovations – Law and legislation – Australia –
Textbooks. I. Title.
346.94048

ISBN-13: 978-0-52183-757-6 paperback
ISBN-10: 0-52183-757-X paperback

Reproduction and communication for educational purposes
The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10% of the pages of this work, whichever is the greater, to be reproduced and/or communicated by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or the body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act.
For details of the CAL licence for educational institutions contact:
Copyright Agency Limited
Level 15, 233 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: (02) 9394 7600
Facsimile: (02) 9394 7601
E-mail: info@copyright.com.au

Reproduction and communication for other purposes

Except as permitted under the Act (for example a fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review) no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, communicated or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission. All inquiries should be made to the publisher at the address above.
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

Preface

Innovation is both a central aspect of industry policy and a crucial management issue for individual firms. Governments strive to devise policy settings that encourage innovation in industry; and no individual firm can ignore the innovation imperative in its decision-making. The distinct factors that determine the shape and size of the innovation spend are many and varied, complex in their interaction and challenging to conceptualise. Inventive individuals, firms and institutions are motivated by incentives ranging from the purely personal to the structural, including the competitive imperatives of market dynamics. In industry, a firm’s R&D investment decisions are influenced by its perceived ability to capture sufficient returns from innovative products introduced into a competitive market where consumers determine commercial success. By deploying various strategies, individually or in combination, an innovative firm can profit from innovation even in the presence of avid imitators. Many available strategies are practical (for instance keeping an invention secret, or relying on imitation lag), and are considered in the broader innovation management literature. This book focusses on the role of law, ie of reliance on the various rights and remedies of intellectual property law to prevent or limit imitation and increase returns from innovation.

The subsistence, structure, scope and interaction of relevant intellectual property rights impacts on individual decisions to invest in innovation, so they are a significant topic of study and evaluation from the innovation and technology policy perspective. At the same time, they are controversial, in that there is considerable disagreement both in industry and in academe about the real impact on innovation of exclusive legal rights. But the relevant intellectual property (IP) regimes are also an inherently interesting subject matter because they are so closely intertwined with aspects of our broader culture, with its historical emphasis on progress, technological prowess and inventiveness. Innovation is a central theme of our times, and within it IP law plays a significant, if difficult to evaluate role.

The separate treatment of the areas of intellectual property law relevant to innovation in this book also accords with the growing recognition of that subject as a distinct area of study. Innovation policy, technology policy, innovation management and commercialisation of IP are dealt with as coherent and integrated topics for teaching, research and publication in books and journals. Encouraging innovation and using intellectual property law to capitalise on investment in innovation are topics well rehearsed and frequently addressed in public forums by government bodies, public institutions and private advisers.

This book focusses only on those selected legal regimes that play a role in industrial innovation. This includes IP law relevant both to what is referred to below as technological innovation, ie innovation in function, and to what is referred to below as product innovation, ie innovation in product appearance. Areas of intellectual property law that are not concerned with useful products and processes, but with topics such as art, literary, dramatic and musical entertainment, thus fall outside the confines of this book. Traditionally the treatment of intellectual property law is divided either into individual ‘regimes’, or into two parts: intellectual property, ie mostly copyright law, and industrial property, which comprises designs, patents, trade secrets, trade marks and passing off, as well as minor sui generis regimes; in short, the law relevant to industry rather than to arts and entertainment. This book cuts across this division: it does not address industrial property law as a whole, but only those aspects relevant to innovation in industry: trade marks law and passing off, naturally significant to industry, are therefore largely (but not wholly) ignored. But some aspects of copyright law are included; in particular, copyright in artistic works, as relevant to the original appearance and manufacturing of new products, and copyright in computer programs as functional processes.

The core regimes relating to the novel appearance of products are copyright (although based on the concept of originality rather than novelty) and designs (either by registration or as an ‘unregistered design’). Naturally copyright includes far more subject matter than is considered here: although in part relevant to the innovation in product appearance, it mainly concerns other things, related to entertainment (music, theatre, literature) or other forms of communication. In relation to functional innovation, the core regime is patents law, although the narrower sui generis regimes mentioned above also play a significant role, as does copyright for computer programs. Trade secrets law is also crucially important as a default regime applicable to all forms of innovation.

Intellectual property law relating to innovation consists largely of regimes that are technology-neutral, ie the criteria for protection are abstract and do not identify the subject matter by its concrete technological nature or visual character. Patents law, designs law, copyright and the law of trade secrets all fall within this class, and form the bulk of the subject matter considered in this book. But a few regimes concern only specific and narrow technologies or products: principally plant breeder’s rights and computer chip layouts. These are considered in a single chapter (Chapter five), which also covers computer programs. This is because, although strictly speaking no sui generis protection regime covers them, with both copyright and patents law playing a role, arguably something akin to a sui generis regime has been elaborated within copyright law to cope with the special nature of computer programs: they are functional and fundamentally differ from all other copyright subject matter. The theoretical choice between sui generis protection and a technology-neutral approach to innovations is a fundamental theoretical question, and is also addressed in Chapter five. That chapter also includes a brief appraisal of the role of trade marks registration in product innovation, which although limited and merely incidental has generated considerable interest in practice and industry.

The structure and content of intellectual property law is, at one level, a matter of policy, ie it results from public debate that is political in nature. Concrete outcomes, modulated by governments, are influenced by multiple, time-bound and often competing interests. On another level, it is a question both of legal theory, the logical structuring and organisation of legal rules and principles, and of specific application: how given rules of law operate in a particular factual matrix, and evolve in the context of real disputes. Although the latter is a matter more for lawyers than for policy-makers, in fact law and policy in IP are always closely intertwined. Lawyers active in intellectual property tend to be well acquainted with underlying policy debates, much as innovation managers keep a wary eye on legal developments. This book attempts to bridge the gap between the specifics of law and underlying theory and policy questions, something that is now increasingly attempted in the literature. Therefore each chapter covers both aspects of policy and theory and core legal issues, with the intention of informing and challenging that growing but varied body of readers (students, teachers, professionals, policy-makers and managers) with a common interest in innovation policy and law, but who, because of different training and experience, bring varying perspectives to specific issues.

As indicated above, the book covers IP related both to innovation in function and innovation in appearance. The law itself tends to observe this distinction between form and function: if an innovation is in essence functional, patents law is primarily applicable; if in essence related to appearance, then copyright and/or designs law applies. Nonetheless, some hybrid forms of protection exist: for instance, computer programs as functional products are protected by copyright as well as by patents. In truth the division between form and function is in any case conceptually tenuous, because products that are novel in appearance often also provide some functional advantage, and vice versa. Nonetheless the law requires the pigeonholing of every innovation, or innovative aspect, in a specific regime, so as to generate a remedy (or remedies: sometimes several areas of law will apply in relation to one product or process). A significant issue, addressed in this book, is thus identifying which legal regimes are relevant to a certain product or process, and also how the various regimes interrelate and sometimes offer cumulative or alternative legal protection. Products also do not necessarily match rights, in that different aspects of a single product may attract the grant of multiple and distinct rights, possibly held by different owners, and often of a different nature (thus rather than having ‘one product one patent’ a single product may attract patent, design and copyright protection in its different aspects). This requires looking at an innovative product with an informed eye, which can recognise legally relevant categories: for instance, a personal computer (PC) is not a category of subject matter as such in any Act; but its novel appearance (eg an unusual shape), its new functionality (eg exceptional speed) and its characteristic user interface may each fall within the scope of protection of one or another regime (designs, patents and copyright respectively in this case). These questions of the interrelationship between regimes are an important theme running through this book, both from a practical perspective, but also from the angle of policy and theory.

Apart from its specific focus on innovation and IP, other choices have shaped this book. Consideration of substantive issues rather than procedural and formal matters lies at its heart. For instance, the book features no detailed discussion of the application process for patents, but contains a substantial discussion of what can and cannot be patented, what novelty really means, who owns an invention, etc. The underlying intention is also to cut through to core questions interesting the majority of readers, rather than providing comprehensive detail on the latest decisions concerning every narrow legal question which may happen to arise; therefore the number of case references is limited. The reading list provides one way of discovering more about specific areas of interest; in other cases only a detailed analysis of the law will provide a satisfactory answer – either by accessing other monographs on intellectual property, of which there are now many, mostly current, in which up-to-date case references can be found; or by seeking the advice of professionals with the necessary skills! The book is also mostly limited to Australian law, although it occasionally refers to other jurisdictions, because that provides informative contrasts between local and foreign solutions. Although there is much harmony between national regimes now compared to the past, there are also still many areas of sometimes striking difference.

Some reasons for writing this book are given above; but most importantly it is a vehicle for sharing ideas and insights with the increasing number of students and professionals both within the law, within management and within the innova- tion policy disciplines who are equally fascinated with all aspects of the complex process of technological innovation and change. The text condenses and brings together the results of research conducted over a number of years, which has in part found its way into some previously published articles. But it does not pretend to provide definitive answers or final conclusions: for that the diversity of well-reasoned opinion in the literature is far too great. A chapter-based bibliography provide both reference detail about sources of information and inspiration, and starting points for further reading. The lists are not intended to be comprehensive, but include such articles and works as I have found particularly informative or interesting, either because of clarity of exposition or innovativeness of ideas. The scholarly output concerning relevant aspects of innovation policy is in fact vast; some of it is too mathematical for most lawyers and others not trained in economics, but much of it is quite accessible. Some is specifically directed at legal issues, while other literature, though principally engaged with technology policy, also has relevance for intellectual property lawyers. As will become apparent from perusal of the reading lists, certain journals tend to publish exactly the kind of articles that lawyers, managers and policy-makers interested in innovation policy are concerned with, and in an accessible form. They amply reward regular review, as does the output of some recently established Australian research institutions, principally the Intellectual Property Research Institute Australia (IPRIA) at the University of Melbourne and the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA).

This book originated in the idea that with the exponential growth of the subject matter a series of distinct works on sub-categories of intellectual property law was warranted. Dividing the subject matter into IP and innovation, IP and entertainment, and IP and reputation seemed like a logical approach. The process of first developing the concept and then structuring the book began quite a while ago. Jill Henry of CUP was interested, supportive and patient throughout, for which I am most grateful. I have also benefited from the encouragement and support of many colleagues, who gave me the opportunity to air and discuss my thoughts and publish ideas in past years. In particular Ulf Petrusson of the University of Gothenburg inspired me with his passion for the subject. Always encouraging and willing to discuss, Peter Drahos of ANU was an example of academic rigour and a source of relevant leads, as was Peter Hall of UNSW/ADFA. Pierre-Yves Gautier’s words of encouragement spurred me on at a few critical moments. I am also grateful to Dean Duncan Bentley of the Bond Law Faculty for his continual support, and my other colleagues there for their cheerful willingness to listen to my accounts of progress (or lack thereof). My thanks also to an anonymous reviewer who provided useful comments. My family also has been patient and a wonderful relief and support whenever required. My research assistant Rachel Norden, whose work was funded by a Faculty Research Grant, also made an excellent contribution.

William van Caenegem

July 2006

List of acronyms

Table of statutes

Statute of Monopolies 1609 (UK) 73,72,75,93

Designs Act 1906 (Cth) 112,128,134,150,166,167,188

Copyright Act 1911 (UK) 169

Patents Act 1949 (UK) 76

Registered Designs Act 1949 (UK) 149,151

Copyright Act 1962 (NZ) 120

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) 23,26,39,111,115,116,117,121,124,134,139,140,150,162,163,164,165,167,168,178

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) 21,178

Patents Act 1977 (UK) 76

Semiconductor Chip Protection Act 1984 (US) 189

Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (UK) 149

Circuit Layouts Act 1989 (Cth) 23,140,174,178,188,189,191,199

Copyright Amendment Act 1989 (Cth) 166

Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) 48

Patents Act 1990 (Cth) 23,38,48,63,64,70,90,107,134,150

Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth) 23,174,193,195–200

Trade Marks Act 1994 (Cth) 203

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) 23,105,133,201

Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act 1999 (Cth) 184,191

Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (Cth) 179,184

Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Act 2000 (Cth) 90

Patents Amendment Act 2001 (Cth) 134

Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) 76

Designs Act 2003 (Cth) 23,112,116,128,133,134,135,140,161,163,189

Table of Cases

Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd (1993) 126,180

Admar Computers Pty Ltd v Ezy Systems Pty Ltd (1997) 181

Allen John Wilson v Hollywood Toys (Australia) Pty Ltd (1993) 157

Allen Manufacturing Company Ltd v McCallum Co Ltd [2001]imaryIE>

Altoweb, Inc [2002] 141

American Cyanamid Co v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1993)maryIE>

Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 73,107

Apple Computer Inc v Computer Edge Pty Ltd (1984) 176,179

Apple Computer Inc v Design Registry (2001) 141

Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Merck & Co, Inc [2004] 86,105

Aus Fence Hire Pty Ltd v Thomas [2004] 91

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] 34,53

Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Home Video Pty Ltd [2001]imaryIE>

Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No 2] (1993) 125,179,180,181,182

Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd (2001) 90,103

Baygol Pty Ltd v Foamex Polystyrene Pty Ltd [2005] 103

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Co Ltd [2000] 75,76,108

British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] 161,162

British Reinforced Concrete Co v Lind (1917) 98

Canon v Green Cartridge [1997] 161

Cantor Fitzgerald International v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2000] 180,181

Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd (1982) 101,102

CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 74,88,186

Centronics Systems Pty Ltd v Nintendo Co Ltd (1992) 189

Christopher Russel John Hansly (1988) 167

Coca-Cola Co (1986) 204

Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] 31,46

Compagnie Industrielle de Precontrainte et D’Equipment des Constructions SA v First Melbourne Securities Pty Ltd [1999] 124,125,128

Comshare Incorporated Applications (1991)imaryIE>

Concrete Ltd’s Application (1939) 167

Conrol Pty Ltd v Meco McCallum Pty Ltd & Anor (1996) 131,137

Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] 125,127,169,170,171,179

Cultivaust Pty Ltd v Grain Pool Pty Ltd [2005] 197

D Sebel & Co Ltd v National Art Metal Co Pty Ltd (1965) 144

Darwin Fibreglass Pty Ltd v Kruhse Enterprises Pty Ltd [1998] 120,168

Data Access Corp v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] 176,180,181,182,183,184,187

Datadot Technology Ltd v Alpha Microtech Pty Ltd [2003] 91

Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 77

Doric Products Pty Ltd v Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd (2001) 103

Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd (1999) 124,125,128

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2005] 99

Electrolux Ltd v Hudson [1977] 99

Faccenda Chicken v Fowler [1987] 56

Ferrero’s Design Application (1978) 137

Fine Industrial Commodities Ltd v Powling (1954) 98,99

Firmagroup Australia Pty Ltd v Byrne & Davidson Doors (Vic) Pty Ltd (1987) 114,138,153–154,156

Fisher & Paybel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1992)imaryIE>

Foggin v Lacey [2003] 150,151,155

Fractionated Cane Technology Ltd v Ruiz-Avila (1988) 45

Franchi v Franchi (1967) 35

Frank Winstone (Merchants) Ltd v Plix Products Ltd (1983–1985) 122

Franklin v Giddins [1978] 34,45

G Ricordi & Co (London) Ltd v Clayton & Waller Ltd [1928–1935] 125

Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997) 185

Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] 193

Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2005] 73

Greater Glasgow Health Board’s Application [1996] 98

Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd (1990) 120,121

Griffin v Isaacs (1938) 91

Grosse [2003] 53

Grove Hill Pty Ltd v Great Western Corporation Pty Ltd [2002] 83,88

Harris’ Patent [1985]maryIE>

Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] 200

Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 58

Hosakawa Micron Pty Ltd v Michael Fortune (1991)imaryIE>

Ibcos Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd (1994) 181

Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] 102,103

Independent Management Resources v Brown (1987) 41,42

Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1992) 120,161,163,166

International Business Machines v Smith, Commissioner of Patents (1992) 79,176,186

Kenman Kandy Australia Pty Ltd v The Registrar of Trade Marks [2001] 202

Kenman Kandy Australia Pty Ltd v The Registrar of Trade Marks [2002] 202,203

Kevlacat Pty Ltd v Trailcraft Marine Pty Ltd (1987) 165

Kipling v Genatosan Ltd [1917–1923] 125

Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] 100,101,102,103

KK Suwa Seikosha’s Design Application (1982) 141

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd [2000] 114,202,203,204

Kwan et al v The Queensland Corrective Services Commission [1994] 97

L.B. (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd (1979) 120,122,123,124

Lincoln Industries Ltd v Wham-O Manufacturing Co (1984) 120

Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Australian Lock Company Pty Ltd [2005] 137,138,150

Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004]maryIE>

Luminis Pty Ltd & Fertilitescentrum AB (2004) 76–77

Macrae Knitting Mills Ltd v Lowes Ltd (1936) 153

Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] 44,59

Mainbridge Industries Pty Ltd v Gordon Whitewood (1984) 127

Malleys Ltd v J.W. Tomlin Pty Ltd (1961) 151,152,154

Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd [2000]maryIE>

Marsden v The Saville Street Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd (1878) 93

Masport Ltd v Bartlem Pty Ltd [2004] 91

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (1980) 72

Moorgate Tobacco Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (1984) 33

Muscat v Le [2003] 139,169,172

N V Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1995) 72,86,176,186,187

National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 69,71,177,186,187

Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 103

Neurizon Pty Ltd v Jupiters Ltd (2004) 103

Nintendo Ltd v Centronics Systems Pty Ltd (1994) 191

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Bomac Laboratories Ltd [2004] 41,46

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] 58

O’Brien v Komesaroff (1982) 41

Peter Szabo and Associates Pty Ltd [2005] 73

Pharmacia Italia SPA v Mayne Pharma [2005]imaryIE>

PhotoCure ASA v Queen’s University at Kingston [2005] 103

Plix Products Ltd v Frank M Winstone (Merchants) Ltd (1983–1985) 122,124,127

Polyaire Pty Ltd v K-Aire Pty Ltd [2003] [2005] 138,152,153

Populin v H. B. Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 101,103

Printers and Finishers Ltd v Holloway [1965] 56

RL Crain v Ashton [1950] 36

Rolls Royce Ltd’s Application (1963)maryIE>

Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd (2000) 102–103

Rufus Riddlesbarger’s Application (1935)maryIE>

Seager v Copydex [1967] 47

Secton Pty Ltd v Delawood Pty Ltd (1991) 39

Sega Enterprises Ltd v Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd (1996) 184

Sheldon v Metrokane [2004] 169,171

SKF Laboratories (Aust) Ltd v Registrar of Trade Markes (1967)imaryIE>

Smith Kline and French Laboratories v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (1990) 33

Smith Kline and French Laboratories v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 47

Solar Thomson Engineering Co Ltd v Barton [1977] 161

Spencer Industries Pty Ltd v Anthony Collins and B&J Manufacturing Company [2002] 98

Stack v Davies Shephard [2001] 93,94

Stephen John Grant [2004] 84

Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment [2005] 185

Sullivan v Sclanders [2000] 34

Sun World International Inc (Formerly Sun World Inc) v Registrar, Plant Breeder’s Rights [1998] 195–196

SW Hart Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems (1985) 118,122,125–6,127

Swarbrick v Burge [2003] 120

Sydney Cellulose Pty Ltd v Ceil Comfort Home Insulation Pty Ltd (2001) 103

Talbot v General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (1980) 38

Tamawood Limited v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] 125,126,182

Tefex Pty Ltd v Bowler (1981) 168

Terrapin Ltd v Builders’ Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd (1967) 37,50

The Antaios [1985]imaryIE>

Thomas Marshall v Guinle [1978] 36

Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd v Scorah [1938] 57,98

Tu v Pakway Australia Pty Ltd [2004] 156

Turbo Tek Enterprises Inc v Sperling Enterprises Pty Ltd (1989) 138,154,155

United Indigo Chemical Company Ltd v Robinson [1931] 56

Victoria University of Technology v Wilson [2004] 97–98

Wanem Pty Ltd v John Tekiela (1990) 152

Welcome Real-Time SA v Catuity Inc (2001) 74,79

Wham-O Manufacturing Co v Lincoln Industries Ltd [1984] 119,120

Whang (2004) 76,77

Wheatley’s Patent Application (1984) 90

Wheatly v Drillsafe Ltd [2001]imaryIE>

Worthington Pumping Engine Co v Moore (1902) 98

Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 56,58