Case Study: Design Patent Infringement - Earth Pty Ltd vs. Coffee Bean

This case study examines a design patent infringement case involving Earth Pty Ltd and Coffee Bean Pty Ltd. Earth Pty Ltd, an Australian company, holds a design patent for a bio-degradable coffee cup. They discovered Coffee Bean Pty Ltd, a coffee shop chain, was using a similar cup manufactured overseas, infringing on their design. The legal action resulted in Coffee Bean Pty Ltd owing Earth Pty Ltd $300,000 in damages for patent infringement, $200,000 for lost revenue, $15,000 in interest, and $40,000 for legal fees. The case delves into the specifics of patent law, including the assessment before the court, the outcome of the case, benefits of patents, defense for alleged infringer, and challenges faced. It explores the legal principles and financial implications of patent infringement, detailing the process of determining damages and the relevant Australian legal framework. The analysis also touches upon arbitration and ADR methods commonly employed in patent cases, along with the use of expert evidence and the challenges in patent litigation.

CASE 1
INTRODUCTION
The case of Earth Pvt Ltd depends on patent encroachment which is a genuine offense submitted
by Coffee Bean Pvt Ltd. The foremost wellsprings of patent law and guideline in Australia are
the Patents Act 1990 and the Patents Regulations 1991. Guidelines of common technique, for
example, the Federal Court Rules 2011, additionally influence patent case. Court choices have
precedential esteem and can tie lower courts in consequent cases.
Australia is involved with real worldwide licensed innovation arrangements, including the:
● WIPO Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883.
● Patent Cooperation Treaty 1970.
● WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994.
● Global arrangements apply just to the degree that they are joined into residential law.
The patent alludes to a lot of selective rights given to a speculator by a sovereign nation for a
confined period in return for a complete hole of an innovation to the general population. Since an
innovation takes care of a specific mechanical issue and is a procedure or an item, it makes
patent to a structure protected innovation. Licenses assume a noteworthy job on the monetary
improvement of a country since they give innovative work motivators that are financially
productive and support and encourage divulgence of advancements into the open area to serve
the general public. System for issuing licenses, patentee necessities, just as the time of the select
rights fluctuate impressively crosswise over states as indicated by the worldwide understandings
and national laws. Be that as it may, each patent application conceded fuses at least one cases
that plainly characterizes the innovation. Notwithstanding when a patent incorporates numerous

cases of which every ha a meaning of a specific property right, the candidate must guarantee that
every one of the applications meet vital prerequisites of patentability, for example, non-
conspicuousness, handiness, and oddity. Patent laws(2019) The uncommon rights given to a
speculator in many countries go for keeping others from financially producing, selling,
appropriating, utilizing, or bringing in a development that is protected without assent and patent
encourages mechanical progression of a country.
ASSESSMENT IN FRONT OF THE COURT
Given the complex nature of patent proceedings, parties are typically spoken to in court
procedures. Just legal counselors and attorneys conceded in an Australian ward can speak to
parties in court procedures. Enlisted Australian patent lawyers, legal advisors and advocates
confessed to practice can show up in procedures before IP Australia.
A gathering can act naturally spoke to in procedures under the steady gaze of the Federal Court
or IP Australia, in spite of the fact that this is commonly not prudent.
The primary prerequisite is that the litigant's item or procedure must have the majority of the
fundamental highlights of a case of the patent. Australia does not have a "principle of
reciprocals". Rather, Australian courts receive a purposive way to deal with the development of
cases (that is, the thing that a gifted individual would have comprehended the case to mean in
light of the basic general learning and the particular in general) so the respondent's item or
procedure may fall inside the case as interpreted regardless of any distinctions or varieties.
The second prerequisite is that the respondent more likely than not occupied with direct adding
up to encroachment. Parr, R.L. and Gordon, V.S. (2018) A litigant encroaches a patent in the
event that it "abuses" the creation in any case without the patentee's consent. "Endeavor"

incorporates the assembling, supply, importation and exportation of encroaching items (or items
coming about because of the utilization of encroaching procedures) and the utilization of
encroaching procedures. In certain conditions, contributory infringers may likewise be at risk for
encroachment
THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE
The sums were payable by Coffee Bean Pvt Ltd to One Earth Pvt Ltd in the year finished 30 june
2019: $ 300,000 harms for income over the year time frame that espresso bean PVT LTD had
been utilizing the other item $15,000 intrigued got on the harm $ 40,000 with respect to the
receipt of the previously mentioned pay of $200,000 got for the enthusiasm on the harms payout
would be saddled as standard pay The harms for configuration patent encroachment of $300,000
and $40,000 for lawful expenses would be charge to the degree of genuine changes surveyed and
expenses pay any choice over the evaluated harm and over the real legitimate charges pay would
be liable to tax collection. Patent laws(2019)
With respect to the receipt of the previously mentioned remuneration of $200,000 got for
incomes misfortune and the enthusiasm of $15,000 got for the enthusiasm on the harms payout
would be exhausted as normal salary.
The harms for configuration patent encroachment of $300,000 and $40,000 for lawful charges
would be charge absolved to the degree of genuine harms evaluated and expenses brought about.
Any alternative over the surveyed harm and over the real legitimate expenses acquired would be
exposed to tax assessment.
The litigant can contend that it doesn't encroach the patent either on the grounds that its item or
procedure does not fall inside the extent of the cases or in light of the fact that its direct does not

add up to encroachment. The litigant can likewise counter case for renouncement of the patent
(area 121, Patents Act).
BENEFITS OF PATENTS
Patents give innovative work motivators that are financially productive. Without copyright
security, spending on innovative work would be extremely low or even wiped out, and this
would restrict odds of a country to progress mechanically (Macedo 836). Also, patents altogether
help in disguise of externalities by allowing the designer directly over the development. Further,
Optimal dimension of patent assurance upgrades residential advancement.
The issuance of patents means to support just as encourage revelation of advancements into the
open space to help the general public. If not given legitimate insurance of patents, the innovators
may select to utilize their creations covertly hindering mechanical progression of a specific
nation. When a development exists in businesses, specifically, those with low minor expenses
and high fixed cost, the commercialization cost is more than the expense of beginning
origination.
DEFENCE FOR ALLEGED INFRINGER
The Patents Act likewise accommodates various explicit guards, including:
● Earlier use by the litigant (segment 119).
● Acts associated with acquiring administrative endorsement (segments 119A and 119B).
● Acts accomplished for test purposes (segment 119C).
● The patent was the subject of a void legally binding condition (segment 144).
Under Australian law, the "Gillette" guard (that is, the patentee can't keep another merchant from
doing what is unveiled in the earlier workmanship) is certifiably not a discrete safeguard existing

freely of a shortcoming activity for absence of oddity (Otsuka v Generic Health [2012] FCA 239,
[118]).
A court can halfway nullify a patent (segment 138(3), Patents Act). By and by, the respondent
looks for denial of the particular claim(s) in regard of which encroachment is affirmed. Albeit
different cases will be unaffected, they may expect correction to the degree that they rely upon
repudiated claims.
Australian law does not perceive utility models but rather accommodates second level patents
known as "development patents". The courts can't change over a standard patent into a
development patent after a fruitful repudiation activity. The Patents Regulations preclude such
change after acknowledgment of the patent application by IP Australia (guideline 10.2B, Patents
Regulations).
Patent encroachment and post-give renouncement activities are perpetually started in the Federal
Court of Australia, which has ward over patents and other government law matters. Various
judges who manage patent cases have involvement in patent prosecution through their previous
professions as specialists or at the Bar, and some have specialized capabilities. Forthcoming
changes will prompt the formation of a licensed innovation division inside the Federal Court.
IP Australia (joining the Australian Patent Office) is in charge of:
Pre-concede examinations.
Pre-concede restrictions.
Reevaluations.
Changes to patents and patent applications.
Different methods to resolve patent dispute

ARBITRATION
The accompanying issues are not arbitrable (Larkden v Lloyd Energy Systems [2011] NSWSC
268 (Larkden), [66]):
● The allow of a patent.
● The assurance of the legitimacy of a patent.
● Other statutory forces exercisable by the Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court.
Be that as it may, a debate between gatherings as to their rights in, and privileges to, a patent
application is arbitrable (Larkden, [67]). The judge's choice won't tie the Commissioner of
Patents or the Federal Court (Larkden, [75]).
ADR
ADR strategies, for example, exchange and intervention, are usually utilized in patent cases over
all businesses. The Federal Court expects gatherings to consider ADR strategies as ahead of
schedule as sensibly practicable (rule 28.01, Federal Court Rules). The gatherings can allude
their question to any ADR strategy, in which case the court continuing will for the most part be
remained. The Federal Court can likewise allude procedures to an ADR strategy (segment 53A,
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976). Court-requested intervention is regularly led by an
enlistment center going about as arbiter.
The utilization of master proof in patent cases is normal. Specialists are quite often delegated by
the gatherings. Be that as it may, they are relied upon to be free and owe obligations to the court
(Federal Court Practice Note CM 7). The Federal Court can delegate its very own master or
assessor (specialized aide), in spite of the fact that these forces have been once in a while utilized

(see Genetic Institute v Kirin-Amgen (No 2) [1997] FCA 1058). Like different observers,
specialists can be questioned.
Master proof can help the court on various issues, including patent development, oddity and
creative advance. In connection to development, master proof can help the court in
understanding the patent and specialized terms. As to, master proof can help the court in
understanding the earlier craftsmanship. On innovative advance, master proof is utilized to build
up the regular general information before the need date.
CHALLENGES IN THE CASE
In most patent cases, the Federal Court has embraced the imaginative routine with regards to
simultaneous master proof (otherwise called "hot tubbing"), whereby specialists from each side
are addressed in the observer box together in the meantime. Simultaneous master proof
commonly includes the accompanying procedure:
● The gatherings' specialists set up a joint report, distinguishing their zones of
understanding and contradiction.
● The specialists are assembled into the observer box.
● Every master alternates in giving proof.
● A specialist can remark on another master's proof.
● The gatherings' delegates interrogate the specialists, with every master having the
capacity to give proof and remark on another master's proof.
● This training enables a specialist to quickly audit another master's sentiment, and enables
the court and the gatherings to concentrate on the main problems in debate.
● Simultaneous master proof has been generally welcomed by judges, specialists and
parties, and has drawn solid worldwide intrigue.

As a rule, there is a probability that the legitimacy of an issued patent by the national patent
office to be tested by an outsider. Such cases are alluded to as resistance procedures. What's
more, the legitimacy of the patent can be tested in the court where party testing plans to
demonstrate that the patent should not to have been issued. Justification for difficulties
incorporate the case topic exists somewhere else or is obvious in the field of specialists
particularly at the season of filling application, the guaranteed topic isn't patentable, and
misrepresentation was submitted at the date of indictment. Another issue related with patents is
patent encroachment that happens when an outsider without assent from the proprietor uses,
makes, or appropriates a patented development. In any case, patents are implemented by a nation
(Chen, Ping-Hsun 906). For example, assembling of an item in Australia that would encroach the
patent of United States does not comprise encroachment under patent law of US except if with
the importation of the item into the US.
Authorization of patents is for the most part through common claim despite the fact that nations
like Austria and France have criminal punishments for patent encroachment. In the US, cases of
patent encroachment are taken to Federal Court (Macedo 834). Patentee suing the infringer looks
for a court order that denies the respondent from getting associated with encroachment act later
on and fiscal pay for the offense. Plus, the individual being blamed for encroachment has the
option to countersuit to challenge the authenticity of the patent purportedly being encroached.
Furthermore, the respondent can guarantee that none of its activities established any type of
infringement (Macedo 834). In uncommon cases, after the litigant documents a case to challenge
the legitimacy of the patent, the patents are observed to be invalid. Cases of patent encroachment
pursue procedural guidelines of Federal courts where the judgment of the area court can be spoke
to the Court of Appeals, and from that point onward, the Supreme Court may take a case

summons of certiorari. In the case where the US government infringe on a patent, the Claim
Court in the United States issues solution for the harms to the patentee (Sautier 658).
CASE II
INTRODUCTION
Australia pursues the universal standard. One-portion of capital increases acknowledged by
people on resources held for something like one year is avoided from pay, making the powerful
duty rate on long haul capital increases a large portion of the rate on different types of salary.
Since the top expense rate on common salary is 46.5 percent, this makes the top capital increases
charge rate 23.25 percent. (33% of increases on resources in superannuation reserves is
additionally prohibited from pay, delivering a top rate of 10 percent—66% of the 15 percent
level duty rate on superannuation income.) Nonetheless, Australia's rate is exceptionally high
contrasted and New Zealand, which does not assess most capital gains,1 and higher than in most
other industrialized nations.
The contention for concessional tax collection is that capital increases are not quite the same as
different types of salary. Since capital gains commonly accumulate on dangerous resources,
burdening them deflects chance taking, to the hindrance of the economy. Another contention set
for lower charge is that capital increases are disintegrated by expansion. Gains on corporate
offers and unit trusts additionally speak to salary that has just been liable to organization level
expense, making singular dimension tax collection a wasteful twofold assessment (despite the
fact that Australia's attribution credit framework disposes of quite a bit of this bending). What's
more, at long last, saddling capital additions disheartens sparing.
Exhausting additions upon acknowledgment makes uncommon issues. It makes a solid
motivating force to clutch acknowledged advantages for evade the assessment—the purported

"lock basically"— a wasteful contortion in money related markets. Additionally, capital
misfortunes are commonly just deductible against capital increases. Permitting full deductibility
of misfortunes would make practically boundless capacity to protect other pay from expense
since a financial specialist could buy balancing short and long positions in resources and after
that understand the situation with the misfortune to shield other pay while going out on a limb
(or, in fact, making a significant speculation). Notwithstanding when such systems are restricted
by resolution, differentiated financial specialists could accomplish comparable outcomes by
specifically acknowledging resources with misfortunes and holding those with addictions. Be
that as it may, with misfortune limits, full tax assessment of additions may punish capital
increases contrasted and different less dangerous ventures.
Faultfinders counter that lower charges on capital additions are unjustifiable. They support the
citizen who acquires her pay as capital addition more than one who procures salary as intrigue,
rents, or eminences. They support well off citizens over those less blessed (in light of the fact
that high-pay individuals are substantially more liable to have capital increases than those with
humble means).("Australian business charges - Austrade", 2019)
Moreover, commentators grumble that concessional tax assessment of increases energizes charge
evasion, which is out of line, on the grounds that forceful (by and large high-pay) citizens make
good on less government obligation than others, and wasteful, on the grounds that the monetary
wizards, legal advisors, and bookkeepers who configuration charge shirking plans could
somehow or another be doing profitable work and in light of the fact that such plans frequently
include ventures or business methodologies that would have neither rhyme nor reason missing
the duty reserve funds.

LAW OF TAXATION SUBJECTED TO SELLING A NON-RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN
AUSTRALIA
Selling a private house in Australia is not the same as selling a non-private house regarding tax
assessment. The essential home is normally exempted from Capital Gains Tax (CGT). This is the
assessment collected on benefits produced using arranging off one's advantages. The Federal
Administration of Australia gathers this assessment through Australian Taxation Office (ATO)
(Nevile, 2015). For those properties that one have been a past tenant, at that point later utilized as
rentals, CGT applies for the period that they filled in as rentals. A property is named as an
essential inhabitant if, your related and their things dwell in it (Austin, Gurran, and Whitehead,
2014). It fills in as your essential mail address. It is your constituent move address. It has a
association with gas, power, and telephone. This basis precludes occasion homes, and leisure
activity cultivates as essential inhabitants. In any case, there are two kinds of exception to CGT
(Nevile, 2015). These are a full and halfway exclusion. One is clear for full exception if, the
living arrangement has filled in as home for your related all through the time of proprietorship.
The living arrangement has never been utilized for business purposes from which it could have
gathered benefits. It must be founded on two hectares and beneath. Halfway exception then again
applies if the abode filled in as your main living place for a timeframe (Faccio and Xu, 2015).
You and your wards live independently. Thusly, some portion of the living arrangement has been
in the past utilized for business purposes that gathered pay. In this case, the house lives on a land
that is multiple hectares. Moreover, when selling your home, it isn't exposed to GST and in the
meantime, one can't guarantee GST credits (Steenekamp, 2012).
THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE
Sam has complete interest in property is:

● Sam bought 80 sections of land of farmland = $270,000 (May 1984)
● 20 sections of land of bordering farmland = $110,000 (February 1995)
● Subdivision costs = $450,000 (July 2017 to January 2018) (barred while figuring capital
additions)
● Specialist's bonus and legitimate charges = $45,000 (April 2018)
● Complete speculation = $270,000 + $110,000 + $45,000 = $425,000
● Earned by selling subdivision = $1,100,000
● Capital addition = $1,100,000 - $425,000 = $675,000
● Capital addition charge is 20% when capital increases is $425,801 or more)
● Capital addition charge = 20% of $675,000 = $135,000
From the above exchanges it is recommended to Sam that his capital increase from the property
is $675,000.He can diminish his assessment risk by capital misfortunes. On the off chance that
Sam had experienced any sort of capital misfortunes amid the previous years from he began
putting resources into property. At that point these capital misfortunes are useful to him for
lessen capital increases ,so that, expense is additionally diminished by decreased capital
additions. From the above information, Sam acquired land for $380,000, and Agent's bonus and
legitimate expenses were $45,000. In this manner, his absolute speculation is in the property is
$425,000. Subdivision costs are excluded as costs while computing capital additions. he earned
$1,100,000 by offering the sub-division to a nearby development organization. Contrast between
the deals and venture is the capital increase that is $675,000. 20% capital addition charge is
forced on capital gains in 2018, and $135,000 is his capital increase charge as determined above
in the appropriate response.
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (GST)