LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
22 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SUMMER SESSION 2005-06 Course Description and Objectives Teacher Assessment March 2006 Examination Lecture Program Weekend Schools 1 and 2 Texts and Materials Prescribed Topics and Course Outline Assignments Assignment Questions
1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 27 27
1
LAW EXTENSION COMMITTEE
SUMMER 2005-06
22 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES The law of intellectual property encompasses the areas of copyright, design, circuit layouts, patent, plant breeders rights, confidential information, business reputation and trade marks. The course provides a general introduction to intellectual property outlining for each category of protection how the rights arise, the nature of the rights, ownership and exploitation as well as infringement and remedies. Throughout the course key policy issues are considered including the rationale and role of intellectual property law, the overlap between areas of protection, the growing importance of Australia’s obligations under international treaties and the interaction of intellectual property law with other areas such as trade practices law.
TEACHER Mr Andrew Fox, BA, LLB (Hons), LLM (Syd) Mr Fox is a Partner at Griffith Hack and specialises in intellectual property litigation. He is a graduate of the University of Sydney, holding Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws (Hons 1) and Master of Laws degrees. Mr Fox has also lectured in Contract Law and Litigation at the University of Sydney.
ASSESSMENT To be eligible to sit for the Board’s examinations, all students must complete the LEC teaching and learning program, the first step of which is to ensure that you have registered online with the LEC in each subject for which you have enrolled with the Board. This gives you access to the full range of learning resources offered by the LEC. Then, students must achieve a satisfactory result (at least 50%) in each subject where a compulsory component is prescribed. To register with the LEC, go to www.usyd.edu.au/lec and click on the WEBCAMPUS link and follow the instructions. Detailed guides to the Webcampus are contained in the material distributed by the LEC, in the Course Information Handbook, and on the Webcampus.
MARCH 2006 EXAMINATION Candidates will be expected to have a detailed knowledge of the prescribed topics: Copyright; Industrial designs; Patents; Confidential information; Business reputation; Trade marks; Overlap of categories of protection: copyright/performers’ protection/business reputation/trade marks; Interface between intellectual property and Pt V Trade Practices Act 1974, and Remedies and enforcement. All enquiries in relation to examinations should be directed to the Legal Profession Admission Board.
2
LECTURE PROGRAM Lectures will be held on Monday nights commencing at 6.00pm in Law School Lecture Theatre 6 (LSLT6). Please note that the program below is a general guide and may be varied according to need.
WEEK
TOPIC
1 14 Nov
Introduction to Intellectual Property; Copyright
2 21 Nov
Copyright
3 28 Nov
Copyright
4 5 Dec
Industrial Design
5 12 Dec
Industrial Design Copyright/Design Overlap Circuit Layouts
6 19 Dec
Patent
Study Break: Saturday 24 December 2005 – Sunday 8 January 2006 7 9 Jan
Patent Plant Breeders Rights
8 16 Jan
Confidential Information
9 23 Jan
Business Reputation
10 30 Jan
Trade Mark
11 6 Feb
Trade Mark
12 13 Feb
Revision
3
WEEKEND SCHOOLS 1 AND 2 There are two weekend schools principally for external students. Lecture students may attend but should be aware that weekend school classes aim to cover the same material provided in weekly lectures and are primarily for the assistance of external students. It may not be possible to cover the entire course at the weekend schools. These programs are a general guide, and may be varied according to need. Readings are suggested to introduce you to the material to be covered in the lecture, to enhance your understanding of the topic, and to encourage further reading. You should not rely on them alone.
Weekend School 1 TIME MAJOR TOPICS KEY READING Saturday 3 December 2005 – in Eastern Avenue Seminar Room 404 (EASR 404) 4.10pm-5.20pm
Introduction to Intellectual Property Copyright
5.30pm-6.35pm
Copyright
6.45pm-8.00pm
Copyright
See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"
Sunday 4 December 2005- in Eastern Avenue Seminar Room 404 (EASR 404) 4.10pm-5.20pm
Designs
5.30pm-6.35pm
Designs
6.45pm-8.00pm
Designs/Copyright Overlap Circuit Layouts
See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"
Weekend School 2 TIME MAJOR TOPICS KEY READING Saturday 4 February 2006 – in Chemistry Lecture Theatre 2 (ChLT2) 4.10pm-5.20pm
Patent
5.30pm-6.35pm
Patent
6.45pm-8.00pm
Confidential Information
See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"
Sunday 5 February 2006 – in Chemistry Lecture Theatre 2 (ChLT2) 4.10pm-5.20pm
Business Reputation
5.30pm-6.35pm
Business Reputation/Trade Mark
6.45pm-8.00pm
Trade Mark
See readings under "Prescribed Topics and Course Outline"
4
TEXTS AND MATERIALS Course Materials • •
Supplementary Materials in Intellectual Property (available via the link to the Law Library on the Course Materials section of the LEC Webcampus) Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments (available on the LEC Webcampus)
Prescribed Materials • •
McKeough, Stewart & Griffith, Intellectual Property in Australia, 3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2004 (“MSG 2004”). Butterworths Intellectual Property Collection 2005, LexisNexis Butterworths.
Reference Materials Students should be aware that the books set out below may contain material which is out of date. Australian texts • • • • • • •
McKeough, Bowrey, & Griffiths, Intellectual Property: Commentary & Materials, 3rd ed. Thomson Lawbook, 2002 (“MBG 2002”). Ricketson and Richardson, Intellectual Property: Cases Materials and Commentary, 3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005 (“RR 2005”). Ricketson, The Law of Intellectual Property, Thomson Lawbook, 1999. Shanahan, Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off, 3rd ed. Thomson Lawbook, 2003. Phillips, Protecting Designs Law and Litigation, Thomson Lawbook, 1994. Trade Mark Law in Australia, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2000. Van Caenegem, Intellectual Property, LexisNexis Butterworths Tutorial Series, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2001.
United Kingdom texts • •
Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 4th ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2000. Skone James, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 13th ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2000, Supplement 2002.
Loose leaf services • • •
CCH, Australian Industrial and Intellectual Property: Copyright, Designs, Patents, Trade Marks, Legislation and Cases Lahore, Copyright and Designs, LexisNexis Butterworths Garnsey, Dwyer, Duffy and Covell, Intellectual Property in Australia: Patents and Trade Marks, LexisNexis Butterworths
Periodicals • • • • •
Australian Copyright Council Bulletin Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin Australian Intellectual Property Law Journal Copyright Reporter Intellectual Property Forum
5
PRESCRIBED TOPICS AND COURSE OUTLINE Many cases listed are relevant for more than one topic area. Most cases are reported in both the Intellectual Property Reports (IPR) and the Australian Intellectual Property Cases (AIPC).
1.
INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Required from Prescribed Materials
2.
MSG 2004: Ch 1 pp1-14.
COPYRIGHT
Reading from Prescribed Materials (1)
MSG 2004: Ch 5, 6, 7 and 8. What is copyright? •
Definitions of copyright
•
Copyright as property – s196 Copyright Act (“CA”) Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Taxation (1970) 121 CLR 154 (MBG 2002 at pp29-31)
•
Fundamental distinction – ‘form of expression’ vs ‘ideas and information’ *Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd [1938] Ch 106 (MBG 2002 at pp41-43) Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 Autodesk v Dyason (No 1) (1992) 66 ALJR 233
•
International aspects of copyright protection Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Universal Copyright Convention (also known as the ‘Rome Convention’) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(2)
Origin and Rationale of Copyright A.
(3)
History
•
Statute of Anne 1709
•
Donaldson v Beckett (1774) 98 ER 257
B.
Moral and economic justifications
The subsistence of copyright
The 4 requirements for copyright protection: (i)
Created by a ‘qualified person’ – ss32(4), 84, 184 CA.
(ii)
Subject matter – ‘works’ and ‘subject matter other than works’ – ss10, 32, 89-92 CA.
6
(iii)
Material form – ss10, 22 CA. *Nine Network Australia v Australian Broadcasting Corp (2000) 48 IPR 335 *Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503 (MBG 2002 at pp48-50).
(iv)
Originality – s32 CA. *University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601 (MBG 2002 at p56) *Kalamazoo (Aust) Pty Ltd v Compact Business Systems Pty Ltd (1985) 5 IPR 213 (MBG 2002 at 59) Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service 111 S Ct 1282 (1991) *Telstra Corporation v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd (2001) 51 IPR 257 (Full Fed Ct; HC Special Leave Application refused on 20/06/03)
(4)
Works
4 types of ‘works’ under Part II CA. (a)
Literary
* Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] RPC 69 * University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 607 * Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Limited [1964] 1 WLR 273 * Autodesk v Dyason (1991) 22 IPR 163 Waterlow Publishers v Rose (1990) 17 IPR 493 * Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171 Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited (1999) 45 IPR 353 AVRA v Warners (DVD case) (2002) 53 IPR 242 * Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Ltd [1940] AC 112 (b) Dramatic Nine Network Australia Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2000) 48 IPR 335 * Zeccola v Universal City Studios (1982) 46 ALR 189 Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53 and (2001) 50 IPR 292 Creation Records v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 1 (c)
Musical
(d) Artistic (i)
photographs
(ii)
architectural plans
(iii)
artistic craftsmanship
* Cuisenaire v Reed (1963) VR 719 Cummins v Vella [2002] FCAFC 218 (Full Court unreported 16/07/2002) * Coogi Australia Pty Limited v Hysport International Pty Limited (1998) 41 IPR 593 * Merlet v Mothercare plc (1984) 2 IPR 456 * George Henscher v Restawhile Upholstery (Lanes) Limited (1975) RPC 31
7
* Greenfield Products v Rover-Scott Bonnar (1990) 17 IPR 417 * Interlego AG v Croner Trading (1992) 111 ALR 577 LED Builders v Eagle Homes (1999) 44 IPR 24 Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 309 Tamawood Limited v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78 (31 March 2004)
(5)
Subject Matter other than Works
(a)
Cinematograph films
Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Limited v Pacific Gaming Pty Limited (2001) 50 IPR 29 Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997) 37 IPR 462 (b) Sound recordings CBS Records Australia Limited v Telmak Teleproducts (Australia) Pty Limited (1987) 9 IPR 440 (c)
Published editions
Nationwide News Pty Limited v Copyright Agency Limited (1996) 134 IPR 53 (d) Broadcasts TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten (2002) 55 IPR 112
(6)
Ownership
(a)
Works – author
ss10(1)”work of joint authorship”, 35(2), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6) CA. Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 Donoghue v Allied Newspapers [1938] Ch 106 Redrock Holdings Pty Limited v Hinkley (2001) 50 IPR 565 Prior v Landsdowne Press (1975) 12 ALR 685 Rexlynne Nominees Pty Limited v Last Frontier Picture Co Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 368 Community ownership: Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd (1998) 157 ALR 193 (MBG 2002 at pp129-138). (b) Other subject matter – maker s22 CA.
(7)
Exclusive Rights (s31)
(a)
Reproduction
Francis Day & Hunter v Bron (1963) Ch 587 Plix Products v Frank M Winstone (1984) 3 IPR 390 King Features v Kleeman (Popeye Case) 1941 AC 417
8
Microsoft Corporation v Business Boost Pty Limited (2001) 49 IPR 573 AVRA v Warners (DVD case) 2002 53 IPR 242 Pacific Gaming Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1636 (26/11/01) (b) Publication Avel Pty Limited v Multicoin Amusements Pty Limited (1990) 171 CLR 88 (c)
Public Performance
APRA v Canterbury Bankstown Leagues Club (1964) 5 FLR 415 APRA v Tolbush (1985) 7 IPR 160 APRA v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 25 IPR 157 Telstra Corporation Limited v APRA (1997) 191 CLR 140 (d) Adaptation (e)
Rental Rights
AVRA v Warners (2002) 53 IPR 242
(8)
Moral Rights
Reading: • •
MBG 2002 at pp34-41 MSG 2004 at 141-146
Schott Musik v Colossal Records (1996) 36 IPR 267 Gilliam v American Broadcasting Co (1976) 538 F 2d 14 Snow v Eaton Centre (1982) 70 CPR 105 Carter v Hemsley Spear Inc In 861 F Supp 303 SDNY 1994 Tidy v Trustees of Natural History Museum (1995) 39 IPR 501 Prior v Sheldon (2000) 48 IPR 301 Loughlan, P “The right of integrity: What is in that word honour? What is in that word reputation” (2001) 12 AIPJ 189 Rimmer “Shine, Copyright Law and Film” (2001) AIPJ 129
(9)
Proprietary Rights
(a)
Assignments 196(1), 197
Australian Olympic Committee Inc v The Big Fights Inc (1999) 46 IPR 53 (b) Licensing 196(2), 197 (i) exclusive licence (s119) (ii) implied licence NG v Clyde Securities [1976] 1 NSWLR 443
9
Beck v Montana (1963) 80 WN NSW 1578 Torpey Vander Have Pty Ltd v Mass Constructions Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 542
(10) Statutory Licences Reading: • • (a)
MBG 2002 at pp159-165 MSG 2004 at pp206-210
Music
section 54-64 (music recordings) section 108-109 (music broadcast/public perform) (b) Educational copying Part VA Copyright Act Screenrights (http://www.screen.org.au) (c)
Cable retransmission
(d) Rental rights (e)
Blank Tape Levy
Australian Tape Manufacturers v The Commonwealth (f)
As a remedy?
A&M Records v Napster Inc 50 IPR 232 (US case)
(11) Collecting Societies Reading: • •
MBG 2002 at pp159-165 MSG 2004 at pp206-210
Other references: Simpson, S “Review of Australian Collecting Societies – A Report to the Minister of Communications and Minister for Justice” July 1995 APRA-Australasian Performing Rights Association http://www.apra.com.au CAL - Copyright Agency Limited http://www.copyright.com.au PPCA - Photographic Performance Company of Australia Limited http://www.ppca.com.au AMCOS-Australian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society http://www.apra.com.au Vi$copy http://www.viscopy.com.au
10
Screenrights http://www.screen.org
(12) Infringement (s36) (a)
Need to prove copying
*Corelli v Gray (1913) 29 TLR 570 King Features Syndicate Inc v O & E Kleeman Ltd [1941] AC 417 *Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587 (MBG 2002 at p185) Kockums v The Commonwealth [2001] FCA 398 Dixon Projects Pty Ltd v Hallmark Homes Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1206 (unreported Cooper J 27/09/2002) (b) Substantiality (s14) (i)
works
* Hawkes v Paramount Films Services [1934] 1 Ch 593 Ladbroke (Football) v William Hill [1964] I All ER 465; 1 WLR 273 Autodesk v Dyason [2002] FCA 1206 Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited (1999 45 IPR 353 * Walt Disney v HJ Edwards Publishing (1954) 71 WN (NSW) 150 (ii)
other subject matter
TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten (No.2) [2005] FCAFC 53 (26 May 2005) (c)
Infringement of right to ‘perform in public’
*APRA v Tolbush (1985) 7 IPR 160 *APRA v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 25 IPR 157 *Rank Films v Dodds (1983) 2 IPR 113 (d) Interim copies Autocaps (Australia) Pty Limited v Prokit Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 339
(13) Authorisation * UNSW v Moorhouse (1975) 133 CLR 1 CBS Sons v Amstrad Consumer Electronics * APRA v Jain (1990) 18 IPR 663 A&M Records v Napster Inc 50 IPR 232 (US case) Zomba Production Music (Australia) v Roadhouse Productions (2001) AIPC ¦91-756 Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Metro on George [2004] FCA 1123 (31 August 2004) per Bennett J MGM Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd (US Supreme Court, 27 June 2005) Universal Music v Cooper [2005] FCA 972 (14 July 2005)
11
(14) Secondary Infringement (a) Importing (b) Dealing (c) Parallel importing Senate Committee Report on Parallel Importation May 2001 ACCC Parallel Importation Report March 1999 Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 1999 ACCC v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1800
(15) Circumvention Devices (section 116A) Universal City Studios Inc v Corley (2nd Circ Appeals 28/11/01) * Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens (2002) 55 IPR 497 (note: HC appeal has been heard, judgment has been reserved). Coco “Anti-circumvention: The New Song and Dance Routine” 2001 12 AIPJ 199 Webber, D “Case Note - PlayStation Held not to Include a Technical Protection Measure - Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens” (2002) 13(4) AIPJ 228 Gethin, S “Sony v Stevens - Are Technological Protection Measures Illusory?” (2002) 15(5) IPLB 61
(16) Defences (a)
Criticism or review, research and study, reporting news (s40, 41, 42, 43)
* TCN Channel Nine v Network Ten (“The Panel”) 50 IPR 335 (trial); (2002) 55 IPR 112 (Full Court) * De Garis v Nevill Jeffrees Pty Limited (1990) 18 IPR 292 (b) Operation of computers (s47AB – 47F) EU Directive on Copyright Harmonisation 2001 (c)
Incidental inclusion of artistic works
(17) Remedies Reading: • (a)
RR 1998 at pp31-48
Damages – Compensatory Damages (s115(2))
Autodesk Australia Pty Limited v Cheung (1990) 17 IPR 69 Prior v Sheldon (2000) 48 IPR 301 (b) Damages – Flagrancy Damages (s115(4)) APRA v Pashalides 2000 (2000) 48 IPR 610
12
(c)
Account of Profits (s115(2), (115(3))
If innocent infringer, only entitled to account of profits not damages (d) Injunction (s115(2)) Microsoft Corporation v Blanch [2002] FCA 895 (unreported Branson J 18/07/2002)
(18) Criminal Proceedings (s132) Ly v Jenkins (2002) 53 IPR 317
(19) Duration Eldred v Ashcroft (US Supreme Court 19/02/03)
Further Reading on copyright:
Lahore, JC, Copyright and Designs, LexisNexis Butterworths Looseleaf. Ricketson, S and Richardson, M, Law of Intellectual Property – Copyright, Designs, Confidential Information, Thomson Lawbook Looseleaf. Fitzgerald A and Cifuentes, Going Digital, Prospect Media, 1999. Laddie, Prescott, Vitoria and Lane, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, 3rd edition, Butterworths, London, 2000. Copinger & Skone, James on Copyright, 14th edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1998. Costello, R., "The New Digital Copyright Law In The Media, Entertainment and Communications Industries” (2001) 12 AIPJ 19. Evenden, R “Copyright Protection of Data and Databases in Australia” Computers and The Law June 2001 Number 44, Page 27. Voon, R “Revising Computer Programs Copyright in Australia: Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Limited" (2000) 11 AIPJ 161.
3. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Required reading
MBG 2002: ch 11 MSG 2004: ch 10
Special Note: Students should be aware that the Designs Act 1906 (Cth) was replaced by the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) which commenced on 17 June 2004. Accordingly, many existing text books only deal with the old Act and so care should be taken when consulting text books. However, MBG Ch 11 provides a comparison between the operation of the old 1906 Act and what was at the time of publishing expected to be the form of the new 2003 Act. Whilst MBG Ch 11 may not accurately set out the provisions of the new Act, this Chapter will be the most useful focal point for course readings on the topic of Industrial Designs. Students should ensure that they have a copy of the new Act for the purpose of this course. The course outline below has been modified to deal with the old and the new Act, to assist in comparisons as practitioners now have to get used to the changes in the legislation. Note that MSG 2004 ch 10 and RR 2005 ch 9 are up-to-date and provide commentary on the 2003 Act. Whilst our focus on this course is the 2003 Act, given that many cases will continue to be heard under the 1906 Act set out below is a ‘before and after’ analysis of the respective legislation.
13
(1)
Requirements for registration
1906 Act Designs Act 1906, ss 4, 17, 17A, 18 Designs Regulations 1982, reg 11 Copyright Regulations 1969, reg 17
2003 Act: ss5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. (a)
Design
1906 Act Wolanski’s Design (1953) 88 CLR 278 Malleys v J W Tomlin (1961) 180 CLR 120 Dalgety Australia Operations v Seeley Nominees (1985) 79 FLR 457
2003 Act: ss5, 6, 7, 8. (b) Applicable to an article Old Act Tefex v Bowler (1981) 60 FLR 314 New Act: “in relation to a product” – s5 (“design”), s6. (c)
New or original
Old Act J Rapee and Co v Kas Cushions (1990) 15 IPR 577 Richsell v Khoury (1995) 32 IPR 289 Minquip Pty Ltd v Mining Supplies Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1378; (2001) 52 IPR 513
New Act: “new and distinctive” – ss15, 16, 17, 18, 19. (d) Industrially applied Old Act Press-Form v Henderson’s (1993) 40 FCR 274 New Act: s18(3). (2)
Ownership
Old Act Designs Act 1906, ss 4, 19, 20, 25 New Act: ss13, 14.
14
(3)
Infringement
Old Act Designs Act 1906, ss 21, 27A, 28, 30,.32, 32B, 39 Firmagroup Australia v Byrne and Davidson Doors (Vic) (1987) 180 CLR 483 Dart Industries v The Decor Corp (1989) 15 IPR 403 Turbo Tek Enterprises v Sperling Enterprises (1989) 23 FCR 331 Elconnex v Gerard Industries (1991) 32 FCR 491 Lift Verkaufsgerate v Fischer Plastics (1993) 27 IPR 187 Oakley v Oslu Import & Export Pty Limited [2000] FCA 700; (2000) 48 IPR 32 Conrol Pty Ltd v Meco McCallums Pty Ltd (1997) 80 FCA 264 Gerard Industries v Auswide Import Export (1998) 40 IPR 119 McCallum & Co Pty Ltd v Allen Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 488; (2001) 52 IPR 550 (appeal dismissed in Allen Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd v McCallum & Co Pty Ltd [2001 FCA 1838]; (2001) 53 IPR 400 Foggin v Lacey [2003] FCAFC 147 (30 June 2003) New Act: Ch 6 – ss70-76. (4)
Design and copyright overlap
Copyright Act, ss 74-77 Hutchence v South Seas Bubble Co (1986) 6 IPR 473 Warman International v Envirotech Australia (1986) 11 FCR 478 Hosokawa Micron International v Fortune (1990) 26 FCR 393 Ametex Fabrics v C and F Fabrics (1992) 38 FCR 415 Amalgamated Mining Services v Warman International (1992) 24 IPR 461 Shacklady v Atkins (1994) 30 IPR 387 Swarbrick v Burge [2003] FCA 1176 Muscat v Le [2003] FCA 1540 Sheldon v Metrokane [2004] FCA 19 (23/01/04)
4. CIRCUIT LAYOUTS ACT 1989 Reading:
MBG 2002 at pp85-87
Circuit Layouts Act 1989, ss 5, 7-11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27 Avel v Wells (1992) 36 FCR 340 Nintendo Co v Centronics Systems (1994) 181 CLR 134
15
5. PATENTS Required reading
(1)
MBG 2002 ch7-10 MSG 2004 ch 11-14
Requirements for patentability
Patents Act 1990, ss 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 23, 24, 40, 43, 51, 59, 97, 101; sch 1: “invention”, prior art base”, “prior art information”, innovation patents. Patent Regulations, reg 2.2
(a)
Patentable invention
N V Phillips Gloeilamopenfabrieken v Mirabella International (1995) 183 CLR 655 Advanced Building Systems v Ramset Fasteners (1998) 194 CLR 171 (b) Manner of manufacture (i)
vendible product
* National Research Development Corp v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 (ii)
method of medical treatment
* Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611 * Anaesthetic Supplies v Rescare (1994) 50 FCR 1 * Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding (1998) 41 IPR 467 * Bristol-Myers Squibb v F H Faulding & Co Limited [2000] FCA 316; (2000) 97 FCR 524 (iii)
computer software
* International Business Machines v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218 * CCOM v Jiejing (1994) 51 FCR 260 (iv)
business methods
* Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2005] FCA 1100 *Peter Szabo & Associates Pty Ltd [2005] APO 24 (5 May 2005) (c)
Novelty
* Griffin v Isaacs (1938) 12 ALJR 169 HPM Industries v Gerard Industries (1957) 98 CLR 424 * General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co [1972] RPC 457; (1971) 1A IPR 121 * Nicaro Holdings v Martin Engineering (1990) 16 IPR 545 * MJA Scientifics International v S C Johnson & Son [1998] 1466 FCA; (1998) 43 IPR 287. Longworth v Emerton (1951) 83 CLR 539
16
(d) Inventive step Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 at 286 * Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) (1980) 144 CLR 253 * Elconnex v Gerard Industries (1993) 25 IPR 173 Kimberley-Clark Australia v Arico Trading International (2001) 50 IPR 513 * Firebelt Pty Limited v Brambles Australia Limited [2000] FCA 1689; (2000) 51 IPR 531 (e)
Distinction between novelty and inventive step
* R D Werner v Bailey Aluminium Products (1989) 25 FCR 565 (f)
Usefulness
* Rehm v Websters Security Systems (1988) 11 IPR 289 (g) Insufficiency, ambiguity, fair basing * Samuel Taylor v SA Brush Co (1950) 83 CLR 616 * Elconnex v Gerard Industries (1991) 32 FCR 491 * Leonardis v Sartas No 1 (1996) 67 FCR 126
(2)
Role of Patent Attorney
Patents Act 1990, ss 200, 201
(3)
Ownership and exploitation of rights
(4)
Infringement
Patents Act 1990, ss 13, 14, 117, 120-122, 138; sch 1: “exploit” * Clark v Adie (1877) 2 App Cas 315 * Van Der Lely v Bamfords [1963] RPC 61; (1962) 1A IPR 86 * Rodi and Weinenberger v Henry Showell [1969] RPC 367 * Catnic Components v Hill and Smith [1982] RPC 183; [1978] FSR 405 * Populin v H B Nominees (1982) 59 FLR 37 E Street Enterprises v CPS Housewares (1996) 36 IPR 431 The Nesbit Evans Group Australia v Impro (1997) 39 IPR 56 * Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1303; (2000) 51 IPR 375; Appeal allowed by HC in [2002] HCA 59 (12/12/02). Great Western Pty Limited v Grove Hill Pty Limited [2001] FCA 423 * ICI Chemicals & Polymers v Lubrizol (2000) 106 FCR 214 * Merck KGAA v Integra Life Sciences Limited (June 2005) US Supreme Court (defence to patent infringement in US: research exemption)
17
(5)
Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994
Sun World Inc v Registrar of Plant Variety Rights (1997) 75 FCR 528 The Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14; (2000) 202 CLR 475
6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Reading from Prescribed Materials:
MSG 2004: ch 3, 4.
(1)
Elements of action
(a)
Elements
* Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co (1948) 65 RPC 203 * Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) [1969] RPC 41; 1A IPR 587 * Seager v Copydex [1967] 2 All ER 415 * Falconer v Australian Broadcasting Corp [1992] 1 VR 662 Wigginton v Brisbane TV (1993) 25 IPR 58 Abbasi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1274 Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1024 Industrial Rollformers Pty Ltd v Ingersoll-Rand (Australia) Ltd [2001] NSWCA 111; (2001) Aust Contract R 90-129 National Roads and Motorists’ Association Ltd (NRMA) v Geeson (2001) 39 ACSR 401; [2001] NSWSC 832; Appeal dismissed in [2001] NSWCA 343 (11/10/01). Spincode Pty Ltd v Look Software Pty Ltd [2001] VSCA 248 Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd v Marsmark Auto Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 516 (b) Employees Ansell Rubber Co v Allied Rubber Industries [1967] VR 37 * Faccenda Chicken v Fowler [1985] 1 A11 ER 724 * ANI Corporation v Celtite Australia (1990) 19 IPR 506 Candle Australia Ltd v Keeley [1999] VSC 305 Mackintosh International College Pty Ltd v Solao [2001] QSC 443 * NP Generations Pty Ltd v Feneley (2001) 80 SASR 151 Uniflex (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hanneybel [2001] WASC 138 * Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317; (1991) 20 IPR 481 (NSW CA) Woolworths Limited v Olson [2004] NSWCA (6 October 2004)
(c)
Third parties
* Wheatley v Bell [1982] 2 NSWLR 544 Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] 2 All ER 620
18
Frankin v Giddins [1978] Qd R 72; 1B IPR 807 RGC Mineral Sands Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 115 Halliday & Nicholas Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Corsiatto [2001] NSWCA 188; (2001) 11 ANZ Ins Cas 61-505
(d) Scope of obligation * Smith Kline and French Laboratories (Australia) v Secretary to Department of Community Services and Health (1991) 28 FCR 291 Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 885 * Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 185 ALR 152 Mullins v Rothschild (2001) 120 A Crim R 574; [2001] TASSC 76 R v P [2001] NSWCA 473
(2)
Public interest defence
* Castrol Australia v Emtech Associates (1980) 51 FLR 184 * Commonwealth v John Fairfax (1981) 147 CLR 39 * A-G (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia (1987) 10 NSWLR 86; (1988) 165 CLR 30 * Westpac Banking Corp v John Fairfax Group (1991) 19 IPR 513 Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Coll of Customs for Vic (1987) 14 FCR 434 Minister for Mineral Resources v Newcastle Newspapers (1998) 40 IPR 403 Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] 2 All ER 370 Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd [2001] 2 All ER 385 New Zealand Post Ltd v Prebble [2001] NZLR 360; [NZ HCt 23/02/2001] Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 908
(3)
Remedies
* Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB 349 * Talbot v General Television Corp (No 2) [1980] VR 242 Cashman v Ackland [2001] NSWSC 863 Coulter v Nunan [2001] VSC 112
7. BUSINESS REPUTATION Reading from Prescribed Materials
A.
MSG 2004: Ch 16, 17, 18.
Passing off
19
(1)
Policy
Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199 ConAgra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; (2000) 46 IPR 481 Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Hogan 1989 14 IPR 398 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Phillip Morris Ltd (No 2) 1984 156 CLR 414 ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199 per Gummow and Haynes JJ
(2)
Elements of the Action
*Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Limited [1979] AC 731 *Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193 *Reckitt & Colman Products Limited v Borden Inc [1991] WLR 491 *Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851
(3)
1st Requirement - Reputation
(a)
What commercial activities are covered
(b) How is reputation fixed in the minds of consumers *Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851 (c)
The problem of adopting ‘descriptive’ names/words
*McCain Foods v County Fair Foods (1981) RPC 69 *Hornsby Building Information Centre v Sydney Building Information Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216 BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363 (d) How is reputation proved (e)
Need for the public to associate product/service with a particular ‘source’
Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Limited [1979] AC 731 (f)
Reputation without business activity
BM Auto Sales v Budget Rent-a-Car (1976) 12 ALR 363 Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193 (g) What is the effect of ‘intention to deceive’ Australian Woollen Mills v FS Walton & Co (1937) 58 CLR 641 Conagra Inc v McCain Foods Australia Pty Limited (1992) 23 IPR 193 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851
20
(4)
2nd Requirement - Misrepresentation
(a)
Types of misrepresentation
source of product, substitution of product, quality of product *Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Pub Squash Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 851 *Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (1990) 17 IRR 1 Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Limited [1960] Ch 263
(b) Character merchandising Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Limited (1989) ATPR 40-948 *Henderson v Radio Corp Pty Limited [1960] 60 SR (NSW) 576 *Hogan v Koala Dundee (1988) 83 ALR 187; 12 IPR 508 *Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v South Australian Brewing Co Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 451 (Duff Beer case).
(c)
Disclaimers
(5)
3rd Requirement – Damage
Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354
B.
Trade Practices Act 1974, Fair Trading Act 1987
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 4, 5, 52, 53, 80, 82, 87 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), ss 42, 43 (a)
Trade and commerce
* Concrete Constructions (NSW) v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594 Plimer v Roberts (1997) 80 FCR 303 (b) Misleading or deceptive conduct: s52 TGI Friday’s Australia Pty Ltd v TGI Friday’s Inc [1999] FCA 304; (1999) 45 IPR 43. Mark Foys Pty Ltd v TVSN Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 61. (i)
relevant public
* Taco Company of Australia v Taco Bell (1982) 42 ALR 177 Targetts v Target Australia (1993) 26 IPR 51 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu (1982) 149 CLR 191 (ii)
objective test
* Hornsby Building Information Centre v Sydney Building Information Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216 Sydney Markets Ltd v Sydney Flower Market Pty. Ltd. [2002] FCA 124
21
(iii)
causation
McWilliams Wines v McDonald’s System of Australia (1980) 49 FLR 455 (iv)
comparative advertising
Sterling Winthrop v Boots Co (Aust) (1995) 32 IPR 361 Boots Co (Aust) v Smithkline Beecham Healthcare (1996) 33 IPR 266 (v) (c)
role of fraud/labelling/intention
Remedies
Trade Practices Act 1974, ss 80, 82, 87, 87CB-87CI (proportionate liability)
(d) Overlap with other categories of protection Sony Music Australia and Michael Jackson v Tansing (trading as Apple House Music) (1994) 27 IPR 649 (e)
Role of survey evidence
Interlego v Croner Trading (1992) 39 FCR 348 (f)
False or misleading representations
Weitmann v Katies (1977) 29 FLR 337 * Telstra Corporation Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Australia Limited [2003] FCA 786 (1 August 2003) * Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v Next Publishing Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 625 (18 May 2005)
8. TRADE MARKS Required reading from Prescribed Materials
(1)
MSG 204, Ch 19, 20
Policy
Attorney General v Brewery Employees Union of NSW (1908) 6 CLR 469 Top Heavy Pty Limited v Killin 1996 34 IPR 282 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; (2000) 46 IPR 481
(2)
Procedure
application acceptance or rejection (Pt 4 Div 2) opposition (Pt 5 Div 2) registration cancel / amend / limit (s88) removal for non-use (s 92)
22
(3)
Trademark (s 17)
A trade mark is a sign used or intended to be used to distinguish goods or services dealt with or provided in the course of trade by a person from goods or services so dealt with or provided by any other person (a)
Sign (s 6)
* Smith Kline French (Australia) Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks (1967) 116 CLR 628 * Re Coca Cola Trade Marks [1986] RPC 421 * Coca Cola v All Fect Distributors Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 481 * Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 48 IPR 257 * Kenman Kandy v Registrar of Trade Marks (2001) 52 IPR 137 Baird, J “The Registrability of Functional Shape Marks” (2002) 13 AIPJ 218
(b) Used or Intended to be Used (s 7) *Imperial Group Limited v Phillip Morris & Co Limited [1980] 1 FSR 146 (nerit) Bently & Burrell, “The Requirement of Trade Mark Use” (2002) 13 AIPJ 181 defensive marks (s 185)
(c)
Distinguish Goods or Services (s 41)
*Mark Foy’s Limited v Davies Coop & Co Limited (1956) 95 CLR 190 Re Application by Bristol Myers Co (1989) 16 IPR 149 *Howard Auto Cultivators Limited v Webb Industries Pty Limited (1946) 72 CLR 175 *Clark Equipment Co v Registrar of Trade Marks (1964) 111 CLR 511 Burger King Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks *Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91 CLR 592 Top Heavy Pty Ltd v Killin (1996) 34 IPR 282 Unilever v Karounas (2001) 52 IPR 361 * Blount Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 40 IPR 498 NOT if become descriptive (s24) Re Sony Kabushiki Kaisha [1987] AIPC 90-412 NOT if does not in fact become distinctive
(d) Dealt with in Course of Trade * Re New York Yacht Club Application
(4)
Will Not Register (Part 4 Div 2)
prescribed signs (s 39, s 18 and r4.15 and Schedule 2) can’t be represented graphically (s 40)
23
not distinguish applicant’s goods and services (s41) scandalous or contrary to law (s 42) Advantage Rent A Car Inc v Advantage Car Rental [2001] FCA 683 (8/6/2001) if likely to deceive or cause confusion (s 43) Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91 CLR 592 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; (2000) 46 IPR 481 NSW Dairy Corp v Murray Goulburn Co-Op (1990) 171 CLR 363 if conflict with registered marks on similar or closely related goods (s 44) Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths Ltd (1999) 45 IPR 411 Torpedoes Sportswear Pty Ltd v Thorpedo Enterprises Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 901 (27 August 2003)
(5)
Opposition (Part 5 Div 2)
same grounds as not register Part 4 Div 2 (s57) not owner of mark (s58) not intending to use (s59) similar to well-known mark (s60) false geographical indicator (61)
(6)
Who Entitled to Register (s 27)
*Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (1960) 103 CLR 391 Michael Sharwood & Partners Pty Limited v Fudrukkers Inc (1989) 15 IPR 188 Re Yanx Trademark (1951) 82 CLR 199 Anheuser Busch Inc v Castlebrae Pty Limited (1991) 21 IPR 54 *Moorgate Tobacco Co Limited v Phillip Morris Limited (No 2) (1984) 59 ALJR 77 (MBG 2003 at pp533-535)
(7)
Exclusive Rights (s 20)
use and authorise others to use authorised users (s 6) licensing -
exclusive or non-exclusive
-
limited in territory, term, rights
Yastreboff, M “Managing the Transfer of ‘House’ Brands: Licensing and Trade Mark Splitting” (2002) 13(2) AIPJ 87
(8)
Infringement (s 120)
(a)
Use as a Trademark
*Shell Co of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Limited (1963) CLR 407 * Coca Cola Distributors v All Fect Distributors Pty Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 481
24
Philips v Remington (2000) 48 IPR 257 Secondary meaning Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182 Arsenal Football Club v Reed (2001) 54 IPR 623 Rugby Football Union v Cotton Traders Ltd (2002) 54 IPR 604 NOT comparative advertising (s122(1)(d)) NOT dealing in second hand goods (s123) Fender Australia Pty Limited v Bevk
NOT descriptive *Top Heavy v Killin (1996) 34 IPR 282 * Pepsico Australia Pty Limited (t/z Frito-Lay) v Kettle Chip Co Pty Limited (1996) 33 IPR 161 *Johnson & Johnson Australia v Sterling Pharmaceuticals (1991) 21 IPR 1
NOT parallel importing (s123) *R A & A Bailey & Co Limited v Boccaccio Pty Limited (1986) 6 IPR 279 Transport Tyre Sales Pty Ltd v Montana Tyres and Rims Pty Ltd (1999) 43 IPR 481
(b) Substantially Identical / Deceptively Similar *Polaroid Corporation v Sole N Pty Limited [1981] 1 NSWLR 49 Deeko Australia Pty Limited v Decor Corporation Pty Limited (1988) 11 IPR 531 Berlei Hestia Industries Limited v Bali Co Inc *Shell Company of Australia Limited v Esso Standard Oil Limited (1963) 109 CLR 407 Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Limited (1954) 91 CLR 592 Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths (1999) 45 IPR 411
(c)
Registered Goods/Services or Closely Related Goods/Services (120(2))
Coca Cola v All Fect Distributors MID Sydney Pty Ltd v The Australian Tourism Co Ltd (1998) 42 IPR 561
(d) Well-Known Marks (120(3)) Vegemite, McDonalds Trade mark dilution Brand extension
25
(9)
Cancel / Amend / Limit (s 88)
any of grounds opposition Part 5 Div 2 registration obtained as result fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation use likely to deceive or cause confusion at time of rectification other than at time of registration or because other well-known
(10) Defences (s 122) Honest Concurrent User Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182
(11) Domain Names Trade Marks - Further Reading
Lahore Patents, Trade Marks and Related Rights, Butterworths looseleaf
Shanahans, Australian Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off, Law Book Company, 1990
Catanzariti, T “Mark of Cain – Distinctiveness in the Australian Trade Marks Act”
Luck “Distinctiveness Deceptive and Confusing Marks under the Trade Marks Act 1995”
1996 7 AIPJ 97
Mostert and Stevens “Protection of Well-Known Trade Marks on Non-Competing Goods” 1996 7 AIPJ 76
Gunning “Trade Marks and Domain Names”
Taylor “Decision in Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd”(2000) 14(2) CLQ 14 ”
The Economist 8 September 2001
Face Value, The Economist 11 May 2002 (page 62)
9. OVERLAP OF CATEGORIES OF PROTECTION: COPYRIGHT/ PERFORMERS’ PROTECTION/ BUSINESS REPUTATION/ TRADE MARKS Sony Music Australia and Michael Jackson v Tansing (trading as Apple House Music) (1994) 27 IPR 649 Musidor BV v Tansing (trading as Apple House Music) (1994) 52 FCR 363 Apand v Kettle Chip Co (1995) 30 IPR 321 Pepsico Australia v Kettle Chip Co (1996) 33 IPR 161 Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia (1998) 39 IPR 303 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 816; (1999) 91 FCR 167 Miller v Britt Alcroft (Thomas) LLC (2000) FCA 1724; (2000) 52 IPR 419 Mark Foys Pty Limited v TVSN (Pacific) Limited [2000] FCA 1626; (2000) 104 FCR 61
26
10. INTERFACE BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974, PT IV MS, ch 22
11. REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT MS, ch 2
27
ASSIGNMENTS There are two assignments in Intellectual Property. The maximum word limit for each assignment is 2000 words (inclusive of all footnotes but not bibliography). Although the assignments 1 and 2 are voluntary, students are strongly encouraged to complete them. Students must submit the assignment by the due date, and should achieve a grade of at least 50% to demonstrate an understanding of the subject. See the LEC Guide to the Presentation and Submission of Assignments which can be accessed on the LEC Webcampus and the advice in your Course Information Handbook before submitting assignments. Completed assignments should be lodged through the LEC Webcampus by 9.00am on the following dates: Assignment 1
Thursday 8 December 2005
(Week 4)
Assignment 2
Thursday 19 January 2006
(Week 8)
ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS To obtain copies of the Intellectual Property assignment questions for the Summer Session 2005-06, please follow the instructions below: 1.
Register online with the LEC (see page 27 of the Course Information Handbook for detailed instructions). Once you have registered, you will have access to all the facilities on the LEC Webcampus.
2.
Then go into the Webcampus, select the Course Materials section and click on the link to the Assignment questions for this subject.
