A judge has ruled gaming giant Aristocrat Technologies cannot patent its Lightning Link electronic poker machine, after six High Court Justices split on whether the popular game was eligible for patent protection.
Dental aligner maker Invisalign has won an appeal of a decision rejecting its case accusing SmileDirectClub of misleading consumers, but the appeals court noted that the prospect of a new trial was “remote” after its competitor went under.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is challenging a decision that Finder Wallet did not need a financial services licence to sell its defunct cryptocurrency product.
The allowance for genuine redundancies is “not absolute” and employers need to consider measures to redeploy workers, including retraining, an appeals court has said in an unfair dismissal case involving 22 mining workers.
Law firm HWL Ebsworth has successfully appealed a decision finding that its negligent advice over property in Paramatta’s ‘Auto Alley’ cost a client $2 million, with an appeals court finding the commercial opportunity lost by the client had no value.
The competition regulator has asked the High Court to correct the Full Court’s alleged error in overturning a finding that builder J Hutchinson and the union for construction workers violated competition laws by agreeing to boycott an independent subcontractor at a Brisbane building site.
Car repair franchise Ultra Tune is challenging a record $1.5 million fine for contempt for failing to comply with a court-ordered compliance program in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
A Sydney concert promoter seeking a cut of the profits earned by Nine unit TEG Live for promoting a 2013 Australian tour with English-Irish boy band One Direction has taken his fight to the High Court.
In a loss for the Australian Taxation Office, an appeals court has found that the Liberty Group’s use of corporate and trust ‘silos’ was not an unlawful tax avoidance scheme.
An appeals court has granted the Commonwealth’s bid to suppress material relating to its “conduct after capture” training in a discrimination case brought by a former ADF member, finding that a document is not in the public domain simply because it is available for inspection on the court file.