Monday, 27 July 2009

Appealing invention

I know everyone has been wondering: what has happened to UWA v Gray? This is the case where it was found that invention did not fall within an academic's duties of employment and thus the university did not own that intellectual property. Even if the university had an intellectual property policy claiming it this was insufficient. Universities can't just go around claiming their staffs' property. Naturally, UWA lodged an appeal, almost as soon as the judgement was handed down. What will they say? This is where it is at, according to the nice people at the Perth registry:
"Matter number WAD 93 of 2008 was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court between 10 to 14 November 2008. Judgment has been reserved. When a date for handing down judgment is known the parties will be advised and the judgment available on the internet. The record will then be amended to show that the matter has been finalised.

In the normal course, the Court aims to hand down judgment in most matters within approximately three months of the hearing. However, in some complex and longer matters, more time may be required. As this matter was complex and was heard over five days, this probably falls into that category.

Judgment writing is a time consuming process. In writing Full Court judgments, the judges, if they are in agreement as to the outcome, may elect to appoint a judge to write the main judgment and the other judges may publish short reasons in relation to areas where they differ as to reasoning in coming to particular conclusions. If a Judge differs from the majority, he or she would publish their own reasons for dissenting. In judgment writing it is not unusual for there to be several drafts, the final draft would need citations and footnotes to be thoroughly checked and thoroughly proof-read in preparation for uploading to the internet."

No comments: