Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 JULY 2017

Patent threats – A muddy area

Carroll & O'Dea
Explore more from Carroll & O'Dea

Patent owners should ensure that they have a justifiable position before making any threat to sue for patent infringement.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Selwyn Black
Selwyn Black
Nicholas Huang
Nicholas Huang
Author LinkedIn connections

Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 44 is a recent Australian federal court decision which highlights that patent infringement litigation can be a double edged sword.

The Key Facts

  1. Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (AMC) owned an innovation patent.
  2. AMC wrote to Coretell Pty Ltd (Coretell) alleging that Coretell's 'Camteq' product infringed its patent. AMC threatened to commence proceedings.
  3. Section 128 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Section 128) states:
    1. Where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens a person with infringement proceedings, or other similar proceedings, a person aggrieved may apply to a prescribed court, or to another court having jurisdiction to hear and determine the application, for:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Controlled Foreign Company rules - UK:

In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.(CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Article

Long Service Entitlements In NSW

After five years of continuous service in New South Wales, employees may qualify for pro rata long service leave payments under specific circumstances—even before reaching the standard 10-year threshold. Understanding when these entitlements arise, particularly in cases of illness, incapacity, or pressing necessity, can significantly impact both employees facing career transitions and employers managing termination obligations.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

Injured While Working As A Delivery Driver? New Protections For Gig Workers.

New minimum standards effective from 17 August 2026 introduce personal accident insurance requirements for delivery drivers and riders working through digital platforms like Uber Eats and Deliveroo. These protections address a critical gap for gig economy workers who, as independent contractors, have historically fallen outside traditional workers compensation schemes when injured on the job.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

AI Glasses And Privacy: Are Our Laws Keeping Up?

Australia's new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, which commenced in June 2025, is being tested against emerging AI-powered smart glasses technology that can record audio and video discreetly. As these devices become more sophisticated and less detectable, questions arise about whether current privacy laws adequately protect individuals from covert surveillance and data collection in both public and private settings.
AustraliaPrivacy
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

2026 Tour De France: Anti-Doping Polices And Enforcement In The Spotlight

The 2026 Tour de France sparked unprecedented controversy when top competitors Jonas Vingegaard and Tadej Pogacar underwent overnight anti-doping tests on the eve of a crucial stage, raising questions about testing protocols and athlete rights. Following Vingegaard's race-ending crash the next day, the cycling world debated whether the disruptive testing procedures violated established standards and contributed to the incident. This examination explores the complex hierarchy of anti-doping authority, the le
FranceMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

Understanding Failure To Diagnose In Reid v Hanafi [2026] TASSC 46

The Supreme Court of Tasmania examined whether a general practitioner breached her duty of care by failing to diagnose or refer for investigation symptoms that were later identified as multiple sclerosis. The case explores the challenge of identifying serious neurological disease when symptoms present gradually over time and appear non-specific, while reinforcing that medical standards are assessed based on information available at the time rather than hindsight.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea