Background
Richard Pahlavani (formerly Seyed Farshad Abedi) worked as a laser engineer for EOS Space Systems and then EOS Defence Systems from January 2021 until he resigned in March 2024. EOS designs advanced electro-optic systems for defence clients, including high-energy laser weapons and anti-drone systems. While employed, Pahlavani was assigned to a project developing a laser-based directed-energy system (referred to in the proceedings as the “Laser Rifle”) and in April 2023 he authored an internal design document — the “Mid-Concept Report” — setting out technical concepts for that system. His employment contract contained confidentiality and intellectual property assignment clauses.
After resigning, Pahlavani incorporated RedTail Technology Pty Ltd in August 2024. In December 2024, he and RedTail filed Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2024904131, titled “Laser Director, an Electromagnetic Spectrum Denial Device, a Pointing System and a Weapon System,” followed by a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application claiming priority from it. EOS commenced proceedings alleging that the patent applications incorporated confidential technical concepts derived from Pahlavani’s work on the Laser Rifle project, and brought an urgent interlocutory application before Stellios J sitting as duty judge.
EOS relied on expert evidence from Professor Benjamin Eggleton (Professor of Physics, University of Sydney), who compared the Mid-Concept Report and the PCT application and identified substantial technical overlap, as well as evidence from Mr Jean-Marc Orhan, a fellow member of the Laser Rifle project team who attested to the confidential nature of the information. The matter was heard on 1 June 2026, with the deadline for compliance set the following day given the time-critical requirements of the PCT filing process.
The Court’s Holding
Stellios J granted the urgent interlocutory mandatory injunction and ordered the respondents to withdraw all patent applications claiming priority from Australian Patent Application No. 2024904131 — including the PCT application — by 6:00 pm AEST on 2 June 2026. The Court found that EOS had established the three requirements for interlocutory relief: a serious question to be tried, a balance of convenience favouring the grant of relief, and inadequacy of damages as a remedy.
On the serious question limb, the Court focused on s 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which prohibits a current or former employee from improperly using information obtained through their employment to gain an advantage for themselves or another, or to cause detriment to the corporation. Applying the Full Court’s framework in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49, the Court was satisfied that Professor Eggleton’s uncontested expert evidence — showing that technical concepts from EOS’s Mid-Concept Report were substantially mirrored in the PCT application — established a prima facie case that Pahlavani improperly used information he obtained as an EOS employee to benefit himself and RedTail.
The Court rejected the respondents’ arguments that the information was not confidential or had entered the public domain. Those arguments raised factual disputes incapable of final resolution at the interlocutory stage and did not displace the existence of a serious question. The Court also addressed the mandatory character of the order: while mandatory injunctions require careful scrutiny, the Court characterised the order as substantively equivalent to a prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from prosecuting the applications. EOS gave the usual undertaking as to damages. Costs and allocation to a Docket Judge were reserved.
Key Takeaways
- An urgent mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring withdrawal of a PCT patent application is available where an employer can show a prima facie case that a former employee incorporated confidential information into the application in breach of s 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
- Expert evidence demonstrating substantial technical alignment between an internal design document authored during employment and a subsequent patent application by the former employee can be sufficient to establish a serious question to be tried, even where much underlying technical detail is contested or redacted for security reasons.
- Arguments that alleged confidential information is publicly known or that “the horse has bolted” will generally not defeat interlocutory relief unless it is clear on the evidence that an injunction would be futile — that threshold is a high one.
- The mandatory character of an order to withdraw patent applications is not an automatic bar; courts will characterise such orders by their substance and may view them as equivalent to prohibitory relief directed at preventing continued prosecution of applications.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for defence and technology employers seeking to protect sensitive intellectual property developed by employees who later become competitors. It confirms that the Corporations Act’s statutory duty in s 183 — which survives the end of employment — can ground urgent interlocutory relief to halt patent filings, not merely to restrain disclosure of information in the traditional equitable confidentiality sense. The willingness of the Court to act on the timeline of the PCT process, ordering compliance within hours of judgment, underscores the availability of rapid judicial intervention in IP disputes where delay would crystallise irrevocable harm.
The case also illustrates the evidentiary weight that focused expert testimony can carry at the interlocutory stage. Where a plaintiff cannot fully particularise confidential information in open court for national security reasons, a technical expert’s comparative analysis of internal documents and patent filings may be enough to shift the burden. Practitioners advising employees who develop inventions in dual-use technology sectors should take note of the breadth of post-employment obligations under both contract and statute, particularly where the employee authored internal technical reports that later appear to be reflected in their own patent applications.