• CONTRACT LAWS

Federal Court of Australia

Elizabeth Kuzmanovski And Bale Kuzmanovsk v. New South Wales Lotteries Corporation (Decided On 17.08.2010)

Offer and Acceptance - Public lottery - Lottery ticket purchased as gift - Acceptance by presentation - Voluntary assignment of benefit of contract - Statutory licensee's offer to pay person presenting winning ticket - Voluntary assignment of right to be paid prize made by gift of ticket - New contract between person presenting ticket and statutory licensee conducting lottery - whether statutory licensee entitled to exercise power under Section 50 of Public Lotteries Act,1996  to use verification code or test inconsistent with play instructions on ticket to be satisfied before prize payable ?

Held, The claim in contract succeeded. Applicants entitled to recover $100,000 plus interest. Lotteries should pay the costs of Applicants's proceedings. By its letter of 26 July 2007, Lotteries communicated its definite refusal to honour its contract. Interest on the $100,000 debt should be calculated from that date. The parties should bring in agreed short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons . A verification code or test under Section 50(1) or (2) is a means of ensuring the integrity of the conduct of instant lotteries. It is important that there be a objective means of ascertaining first, whether a ticket is genuine and was, in fact, a ticket originally sold by Lotteries or its agent; secondly, whether apart from having its cover scratched off, it has not been altered so as to make it appear to be different from the article sold by Lotteries or its agent. Once a ticket has been accepted as valid, a verification test or code can also be used to determine if it is prizewinning in accordance with Section 50(3)(b). A verification code or test under Section 50 cannot change the nature of the instant lottery so as to alter the prizewinning status of a valid ticket that contains numbers designated under Section 5(1)(b) as prizewinning numbers.

Section 50(3) specified that the purposes of a verification code were first, to prevent forgery or fraudulent alteration of tickets and, secondly, to provide "a conclusive means of determining prizewinning tickets in accordance with the total amount allocated for prizes in that lottery". It contended that Section 50(3)(b) justified its refusal to pay the $100,000 prize because of its assertion that the ticket was not intended by it to be a winning one.

Lotteries relied on the express incorporation of the Public Lotteries Act and the Rules into the ticket. It contended that Section 50(1) entitled it to record a verification code on the ticket. It relied on the code recorded and contended that this code determined that the ticket had not won a prize.

• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 

          United States Federal Circuit

Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. Emscharts, Inc (Decided on 09.08.2010)

Suit for patent infringement, involving a patent directed to computerized systems and methods for information management services in connection with emergency medical transport,  - Whether District Court's finding of no joint infringement affirmed?

Court affirm the district court's finding of no joint infringement. The District Court also concluded that the evidence of control or direction was insufficient as a matter of law to uphold a finding of joint infringement. Court agree with the District Court that the evidence here was insufficient for jury to infer control or direction. No need for extended discussion of this issue . However, it concluded that the district court must make additional fact findings with respect to the intent prong of inequitable conduct, the district court subsequently granted Judgment as a Matter of Law of no joint infringement of claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 12-22 of the '073 patent and held the '073 patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. 

     Gregory W. Baran, M.D v. Medical Device Technologies, Inc. (Decided On 12.08.2010)

Patent infringement suit - Structure was not equivalent to the structure described in the specification - Alleging infringement of certain patents, directed to automated biopsy instruments, district court's entry of judgment in favor of defendant as to both patents affirmed - Whether the the Accused structure was not equivalent to the structure described in the specification?

Held, as the District Court concluded that the Accused structure was substantially different from the disclosed structure because the BioPince device requires the locking tab to flex in a yielding manner for the release to occur, while the patented invention relies on a lever that must be rigid in order to pivot on its fulcrum. The two structures rely on opposing principles: the lever facili-tates the release by clearing the retention means from the path of the guide, while the locking tab mechanism achieves release only by overcoming the full resistance of the retention means. Because of that structural differ-ence, the lever must be rigid to release the guide, while the locking tab must be flexible to do the same. The references to "flexibility" that Accused cites from the patent refer to the fact that the lever remains free to pivot flexibly along the fulcrum, not that the lever itself is made of flexible material. Indeed, it would be impossible to operate a lever if it were made of highly elastic mate-rial, just as it would be impossible to bypass a locking tab if it were made of stiff, unyielding material. Accordingly, Court concur with the District Court that the accused struc-ture is substantially different from the disclosed structure and therefore does not infringe pursuant to section 112, paragraph 6.