Australian court orders withdrawal of patent applications before publication in extraordinary confidentiality ruling

Australia’s Federal Court has ordered a former employee and his company to withdraw patent applications, including a PCT application, before publication after finding a serious question that information obtained during his employment had been improperly used.

In an unusual patent and confidentiality dispute, the Federal Court of Australia has granted a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring RedTail Technology Pty Ltd and its founder Richard Pahlavani to withdraw patent applications claiming priority from an Australian provisional patent application.

The order extended to applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

The decision, EOS Defence Systems Pty Limited v. Pahlavani [2026] FCA 688, was handed down by Justice Stellios on June 2, 2026, after the application was brought on an urgent basis. Proceedings commenced on May 29; the injunction application was heard on June 1; and judgment followed the next day.

The case is particularly unusual because the Court intervened while the applications remained unpublished, with the impending publication of the patent material forming an important part of the Court’s assessment of the balance of convenience.

Dispute followed former employee’s patent filing

Pahlavani worked as a laser engineer for EOS between January 2021 and March 2024.

During his employment, he worked on a project involving a laser or anti-drone system. His employment contract contained provisions concerning confidential information and intellectual property.

Pahlavani resigned from EOS in March 2024 and incorporated RedTail Technology in August 2024.

In December 2024, RedTail filed Australian Patent Application No. 2024904131, a provisional application entitled “Laser Director, an Electromagnetic Spectrum Denial Device, a Pointing System and a Weapon System.”

A subsequent PCT application was filed claiming priority from the Australian application.

EOS Space Systems Pty Limited and EOS Defence Systems Pty Limited subsequently commenced proceedings alleging that Pahlavani had used and/or disclosed information obtained during his employment in preparing the patent applications.

EOS sought, among other relief, an urgent mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring RedTail and Pahlavani to withdraw all patent applications claiming priority from the Australian application, including the PCT application.

Serious question over use of employment information

Justice Stellios applied the ordinary principles governing interlocutory injunctions.

A central issue was whether EOS had established a serious question to be tried concerning the alleged misuse of information.

EOS relied, among other things, on section 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which concerns the improper use of information obtained because a person is, or has been, an officer or employee of a corporation.

The Court accepted that EOS had established a serious question to be tried.

Expert evidence relied upon by EOS identified concepts forming part of the EOS laser project, to which Pahlavani had contributed and had access, that also appeared in the PCT application.

Justice Stellios therefore considered there was a serious question as to whether Pahlavani had improperly used information obtained because of his employment with EOS to gain an advantage for himself or RedTail.

Importantly, this was an interlocutory finding. The Court was not making a final determination that Pahlavani had misused EOS’s confidential information.

The Court also rejected arguments that EOS had failed to identify the alleged information with sufficient specificity and that the information was clearly not confidential. The evidence did not make the latter issue sufficiently clear at the interlocutory stage.

Mandatory injunction required withdrawal

The nature of the relief sought was unusual.

EOS was not simply asking the Court to restrain RedTail and Pahlavani from using information or prosecuting the applications. It sought an order requiring them to withdraw the applications.

The respondents argued that the mandatory character of the injunction should weigh against granting it.

Justice Stellios accepted the fact that the order required positive action was relevant to the interlocutory assessment. However, his Honor considered that the order could, in substance, be viewed as equivalent to an order restraining the respondents from prosecuting the patent applications.

The mandatory character of the injunction therefore did not create a separate and higher legal threshold. It was a factor to be considered in assessing the balance of convenience.

Publication deadline was critical

The impending publication of the applications was central to EOS’s case.

EOS submitted that the Australian application and PCT application were expected to become public on or around June 18, 2026.

If publication occurred, the confidentiality of the information contained in the applications would be lost.

EOS argued that disclosure could harm its ability to commercialize its technology, particularly given the nature of its customers in the defense and government sectors. It also argued that competitors could potentially use the information to reverse-engineer or replicate aspects of the technology.

Justice Stellios considered these matters significant in the balance-of-convenience assessment.

The timing was therefore critical. The Court was being asked to intervene before publication, when the confidentiality of the information could still potentially be preserved.

Patent rights versus confidentiality

RedTail and Pahlavani argued that the injunction would cause substantial prejudice.

Withdrawal would bring the existing applications to an end and deprive them of the opportunity to pursue patent protection in multiple jurisdictions based on the existing priority date.

They also argued that losing the applications would have financial consequences, including making it more difficult to attract investment into RedTail’s business.

Justice Stellios accepted that the respondents would suffer detriment.

However, his Honor was not persuaded that the resulting loss could not be compensated through damages. EOS had offered the usual undertaking as to damages and was accepted as having the financial means to satisfy an award if required.

EOS’s position was also strengthened by its argument that even an eventual assignment of patent rights would not adequately address the harm caused by publication of the underlying information.

Redaction was not considered sufficient

An alternative to withdrawal was also considered: redacting the relevant passages from the PCT application.

That option did not provide sufficient certainty.

Counsel for RedTail and Pahlavani accepted during the hearing that there would be no guarantee that redaction would be effective in preventing disclosure of the relevant information.

The Court therefore granted the mandatory interlocutory injunction, subject to EOS’s undertaking as to damages.

The Australian provisional application was subsequently withdrawn and is recorded as lapsed on the Australian patent register.

Important implications for patent strategy

The decision is unusual because the Court’s intervention was directed at withdrawal of patent applications before publication, rather than simply restraining use of allegedly confidential information.

It provides a striking illustration of the importance of timing where a former employee is suspected of incorporating an employer’s confidential R&D information into a patent filing.

Once a patent application is published, information that was previously confidential may become available to competitors and the public. In this case, the impending publication date gave the confidentiality issue an urgency that was central to the interlocutory application.

For companies, the case also highlights the importance of carefully drafted employment agreements covering intellectual property and confidential information, together with records capable of establishing what information employees had access to during the course of their work.

For patent practitioners, the case raises an additional strategic question when a potentially improper filing by a former employee is discovered: how quickly can effective relief be obtained before publication?

A rare intervention before publication

The speed of the proceedings was itself notable.

EOS commenced proceedings on Friday, May 29. The mandatory injunction application was heard on Monday, June 1, and Justice Stellios delivered judgment on Tuesday, June 2.

The substantive proceedings continue.

But the interlocutory decision has already produced an unusual outcome: a Federal Court order requiring the withdrawal of patent applications before they reached the publication stage.

For patent owners concerned about confidential R&D information appearing in a former employee’s patent filing, EOS Defence Systems v. Pahlavani demonstrates the potential significance of urgent interlocutory relief — particularly where publication is imminent.

← Back to News