MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W310650258

Intellectual Property Litigation in Australia

2008· article· en· W310650258 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
John S. Fairbairn, S. Stuart Clark

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawJurisdictionIntellectual propertyCommon lawJurisprudencePolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AUSTRALIA'S strong economy makes it a significant user and creator of intellectual property (IP) rights. It is also a significant jurisdiction in multinational IP disputes, which are becoming increasingly common in today's global economy. This article provides an overview and analysis of IP litigation in Australia. I. Overview of Australian Legal System It is useful, as a preliminary matter, to briefly outline how Australia's legal system operates, (1) with particular reference to IP disputes. Federal System Australia is a federation comprising six states and two self governing territories. The Australian Constitution specifies a range of matters that are the responsibility of the Federal Government. The balance of legal matters remains the responsibility of the various State and Territory Governments. Relevantly, the Federal Government has the power to make and has made laws with respect to IP and in particular copyright, patents of inventions, designs, and trade marks. (2) Australia's laws and legal system have their foundation in the common law of England and its practices and procedures broadly reflect those of the Anglo-American common law world. While judgments of the House of Lords and the English Court of Appeal are of persuasive authority, they are not binding on Australian courts. More recently, in developing Australia's laws, its courts have looked to the jurisprudence of other countries, particularly the United States and Canada. This is particularly so in the case of IP laws. Australia has both a Federal Court system and a hierarchy of courts in each of the States and Territories. Each of Australia's Federal IP statutes vests primary jurisdiction for IP litigation in the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court). Concurrent jurisdiction is also vested in the various State Supreme Courts, but generally, IP litigation is commenced and prosecuted in the Federal Court and consequently it is this system that is the focus of this paper. Federal Court The Federal Court operates from all capital cities in Australia, but the vast majority of IP litigation is conducted in Sydney and Melbourne, the capitals of Australia's most populous states, New South Wales and Victoria respectively. The Federal Court is a superior court of record and a court of law and equity; however, it is not a court of general jurisdiction. Rather its jurisdiction is conferred by Federal statutes such as the IP statutes discussed here. Once seized of jurisdiction, the Federal Court is able to deal with all aspects of a dispute, even those arising under common law, equity or State statute, by reason of its accrued jurisdiction. In this way, the Federal Court is able to deal with general law actions such as breach of confidence and passing off. The Federal Court also has jurisdiction to hear appeals from examiner's decisions of the Trade Marks and Patents Offices. These involve a de novo hearing of the matter, rather than an appeal in the usual sense and the parties may lead fresh evidence. Federal Magistrate's Court Some shorter and simpler IP claims can be litigated in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, a lower level federal court with a more limited jurisdiction that aims to provide a simpler and more accessible alternative to litigation in the superior courts. It is a relatively recent creation that conducted its first sittings in 2000. Its jurisdiction is also conferred by Federal statute and includes copyright and consumer protection. The Federal Court can also exercise its discretion to transfer other IP matters to the Federal Magistrates Court. Copyright Tribunal of Australia The Copyright Tribunal was established under the Copyright Act to deal with inquiries and disputes arising out of royalties payable in respect of the recording of musical works, certain compulsory licences, and existing and proposed licensing schemes, amongst other things. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,099

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,005
Communication savante0,0080,004
Science ouverte0,0010,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,083
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetConflict of Laws and JurisdictionTravaux en français237 207