EOS Defence Systems Pty Limited v Pahlavani [2026] FCA 688

Federal Court of Australia

File number(s):	NSD 907 of 2026

Judgment of:	STELLIOS J

Date of judgment:	2 June 2026

Date of publication of reasons:	4 June 2026

Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – urgent application for interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring the respondents to withdraw an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty – prima facie case established – balance of convenience favours granting relief – application granted

Legislation:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 183 Patent Cooperation Treaty (Washington, 19 June 1970)

Cases cited:	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1221 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; 247 CLR 345 Blatch v Archer [1774] EngR 2; (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969 Cashman v Ackland [2001] NSWSC 863 New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49

Division:	General Division

Registry:	New South Wales

National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property

Sub-area:	Patents and associated Statutes

Number of paragraphs:	93

Date of hearing:	1 June 2026

Counsel for the Applicants:	C Dimitriadis SC with S Ross

Solicitor for the Applicants:	Minter Ellison

Counsel for the Respondents:	B Cameron with N Gollan

Solicitor for the Respondents:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

ORDERS

		NSD 907 of 2026

BETWEEN:	EOS DEFENCE SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED ACN 052 193 192 First Applicant EOS SPACE SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED ACN 100 248 253 Second Applicant ELECTRO OPTIC HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED ACN 008 587 451 Third Applicant
AND:	RICHARD PAHLAVANI First Respondent REDTAIL TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD ACN 679 784 975 Second Respondent

order made by:	STELLIOS J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 june 2026

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1. The applicants have agreed to give the usual undertaking as to damages, being to:

(a) submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation (to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct), to any person (whether or not that person is a party), affected by the operation of the order or undertaking or any continuation (with or without variation) of the order or undertaking; and

(b) pay the compensation referred to in 1(a) to the person affected by the operation of the order or undertaking.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2. By 6.00pm on Tuesday, 2 June 2026 (AEST) the respondents are to take steps as may be necessary to withdraw any and all application(s) that claim priority from Australian Patent Application number 2024904131 titled "LASER DIRECTOR, AN ELECTROMAGNETIC DENIAL DEVICE, A POINTING SYSTEM AND A WEAPON SYSTEM", including any applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

3. The parties be given an opportunity to address the question of costs arising from these orders. The timetabling of those submissions and, if necessary, a further oral hearing will be settled administratively through Justice Stellios’ chambers.

4. The proceeding be referred to the National Allocations Team for allocation to a Docket Judge.

5. Liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STELLIOS J:

Introduction

1 This application for urgent interlocutory relief came before me as duty judge. The application was heard on 1 June 2026 and the submissions occupied the full day. As will be explained, the application is time sensitive, with the orders to be made by 4.00pm on 2 June 2026. These reasons are as comprehensive as was possible within the compressed time-period.

2 The applicants seek an injunction against the respondents to take steps as may be necessary to withdraw any and all application(s) that claim priority from Australian Patent Application number 2024904131 titled “LASER DIRECTOR, AN ELECTROMAGNETIC DENIAL DEVICE, A POINTING SYSTEM AND A WEAPON SYSTEM”, including any applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

3 For the reasons that follow, I make the order sought.

Brief statement of background facts

4 Richard Pahlavani (the first respondent, previously known as Seyed Farshad Abedi until early 2022 when he changed his name) is the founder and sole director, secretary and shareholder of the second respondent, RedTail Technology Pty Ltd. RedTail was incorporated on 8 August 2024.

5 Mr Pahlavani was formerly employed as a laser engineer, first by the second applicant, EOS Space Systems Pty Limited and, later, by the first applicant, EOS Defence Systems Pty Limited, from about 18 January 2021 until about 19 March 2024. The three applicants will be referred to collectively as EOS. After a short secondment period, Mr Pahlavani received a permanent placement with EOS Defence Systems. The transfer took effect from approximately 11 April 2022. His employment terms and conditions otherwise remained unchanged. The employment contract signed by Mr Pahlavani on 24 November 2020 contained confidential information and intellectual property clauses to which I will return.

6 EOS specialise in the design, development and production of advanced electro optic technology devices and systems for the space and defence markets. In particular, they specialise in advanced technologies that enable the integration of weapon systems onto a diverse range of platforms used in both land and maritime domains. EOS Defence Systems products include high-energy laser weapons, combat and force protection systems, as well as next-generation solutions for countering unmanned aerial systems (ie, anti-drone systems) and lethality systems for unmanned ground vehicles. Its clients include various defence and military forces around the world. During Mr Pahlavani’s employment he worked on a project relating to a laser system or anti-drone system (Laser Rifle).

7 Shortly after commencing employment with EOS Space Systems, on 3 February 2021, Mr Pahlavani emailed Dr James Webb, Head of Science and Innovation at EOS Space Systems, attaching a document entitled “Pre-Employment Intellectual Property Disclosure”. The purpose of the document was stated as disclosing “the Intellectual Property (IP) and copy right [sic] possessed by [Mr Pahlavani] conceived of prior to [his] employment at Electro Optic Systems (EOS) which commenced on 18/01/2021”. The document continued:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

8 Item 9 was in the following terms:

9 On 15 February 2021, Dr Webb replied, copying in the Chief Executive Officer of EOS Space Systems, Dr Craig Smith:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED]

10 Item 7 is presently irrelevant. Two observations may be made about this email. First, there is no reference to the “laser cannon” described in Item 9. Secondly, there is reference to potential conflicts of interest that might arise between the Disclosure and Mr Pahlavani’s contractual obligations.

11 Mr Pahlavani gave evidence that he was approached by his supervisor, Mr Ian Hilton-Cowie, on 16 March 2023 to work on the Laser Rifle project. On 17 March 2023, Mr Pahlavani sent an email to Mr Hilton-Cowie, attaching the Disclosure and stating:

12 On the same day, Mr Hilton-Cowie responded in the following terms:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

13 On 2 April 2023, Mr Pahlavani replied:

14 “John” is a reference to Jean-Marc (John) Orhan, another member of the Laser Rifle project team, who was responsible for the electrical, electronic and software aspects of the project.

15 On 3 April 2023, Mr Hilton-Cowie responded:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

16 On 26 April 2023, Mr Pahlavani authored a draft document entitled “[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Version: 1.0” (Mid-Concept Report). The final version of this document was not in evidence. The opening sentence of the Introduction stated:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

17 Mr Pahlavani resigned from EOS Defence Systems in March 2024. As indicated earlier, Mr Pahlavani incorporated RedTail on 8 August 2024. On 13 December 2024, the respondents filed a provisional patent application: Australian Patent Application number 2024904131 entitled “LASER DIRECTOR, AN ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM DENIAL DEVICE, A POINTING SYSTEM AND A WEAPON SYSTEM”. An application was subsequently filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT application). Collectively, these applications will be referred to as the patent applications.

Originating application

18 The applicants contend that Mr Pahlavani has used and/or disclosed, without permission, confidential information obtained from his employment with EOS in preparing the patent applications. In their originating application, they seek declarations that he has:

(1) contravened s 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth);

(2) breached an equitable obligation of confidentiality owed to the applicants;

(3) breached the terms of his employment contract; and

(4) breached his fiduciary duty to the applicants.

19 The applicants also seek declarations that, by using and/or disclosing the information or part thereof without permission, RedTail:

(1) was knowingly involved in Mr Pahlavani’s contravention of s 183 of the Corporations Act;

(2) breached an equitable obligation of confidentiality owed to the applicants;

(3) induced Mr Pahlavani’s breach of his employment contract; and

(4) was knowingly involved in Mr Pahlavani’s breach of fiduciary duty to the applicants.

20 The confidential information is described in Confidential Annexure A to the originating application as:

21 In their written submissions, the applicants explained that the reference to paragraph [63] was an error, and the reference should have been to paragraph [64]. The respondents complained about the lateness of bringing that error to their attention; however, the reference to paragraph [63] is a clear error and, in any event, the respondents accepted that paragraph [64] had in substance been addressed in Mr Pahlavani’s evidence. The matters referred to in paragraphs [33] and [64] are reproduced, respectively, below at [40] and [41].

22 The applicants also seek orders permanently restraining the respondents from using/disclosing the information, pecuniary relief, and delivery and destruction of the information.

The interlocutory relief

23 The applicants also claim the following orders by way of urgent interlocutory relief:

1. An order that by 11pm on Monday, 1 June 2026 (AEST) the Respondents are to take steps as may be necessary to withdraw any and all application(s) that claim priority from Australian Patent Application number 2024904131 titled "LASER DIRECTOR, AN ELECTROMAGNETIC DENIAL DEVICE, A POINTING SYSTEM AND A WEAPON SYSTEM", including any applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT Application).

2. The Respondents pay the costs of the Applicants of and arising from the application for interlocutory relief.

3. Such further or other orders as the Court thinks fit.

evidence

24 The applicants relied on the following evidence in support of the application for interlocutory relief:

(1) Affidavit of Simone Mitchell, partner at the applicants’ firm of solicitors, sworn on 28 May 2026;

(2) Affidavit of Benjamin Eggleton, Professor of Physics at the University of Sydney, affirmed on 29 May 2026;

(3) Affidavit of Jean-Marc (John) Orhan affirmed on 29 May 2026; and

(4) Affidavit of Chloe Widmaier, in-house Legal Counsel for Electro Optic Systems Pty Limited, affirmed on 29 May 2026.

25 At the start of the hearing, the applicants also tendered three documents without objection:

(1) A letter dated 24 March 2023 from Mr Hilton-Cowie to Mr Pahlavani entitled “Notification of setting up your own private/non-EOS business”;

(2) An email chain internal to EOS discussing a request from Mr Pahlavani to initiate his own company, with the most recent email in the chain being dated 23 March 2023 at 11:03AM; and

(3) An extension of the earlier email chain going into further detail about Mr Pahlavani’s proposed private consultancy work, with the most recent email in the chain being dated 23 March 2023 at 12:22PM.

26 The respondents relied on the following evidence:

(1) Affidavit of Rebekah Gay affirmed on 31 May 2026; and

(2) Affidavit of Richard Pahlavani affirmed on 31 May 2026.

27 At the outset of the hearing, the respondents raised four objections to Mr Orhan’s affidavit and two objections to Ms Widmaier’s affidavit. I will deal with the objections below only to the extent that they are relevant to these reasons.

Applicable principles

28 There was no material dispute between the parties as to the principles to be applied to the application for an interlocutory injunction. First, the applicants must establish that there is a serious question to be tried. Secondly, the applicants must establish that the balance of convenience favours the making of the order. Thirdly, the applicants must establish that damages would not be an adequate remedy.

29 While it was accepted by both sides that these principles apply to the kind of mandatory injunction sought by the applicants (see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1221 at [8] (Beach J)), the respondents emphasised that the mandatory character of the injunction should be a weighty factor against the order being made. I accept that the fact that the order sought requires the respondents to take certain action is a consideration to weigh in the balance. However, I also accept that the character of the order is not dissimilar to an order that would have restrained the respondents from filing those patent applications if the order had been sought beforehand. When seen in that way, the order sought can be in substance characterised, as the applicants submitted, as an order for the respondents to refrain from prosecuting the patent applications.

Serious question to be tried

30 For the purposes of this interlocutory proceeding, it is sufficient to focus on the alleged contravention of s 183(1) of the Corporations Act. That section provides:

183 Use of information—civil obligations

Use of information—directors, other officers and employees

(1) A person who obtains information because they are, or have been, a director or other officer or employee of a corporation must not improperly use the information to:

(a) gain an advantage for themselves or someone else; or

(b) cause detriment to the corporation.

Note 1: This duty continues after the person stops being an officer or employee of the corporation.

Note 2: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E).

(2) A person who is involved in a contravention of subsection (1) contravenes this subsection.

Note 1: Section 79 defines involved.

Note 2: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E).

31 The parties referred me to the Full Court’s decision in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49. At [123], [124] and [148], Moshinsky, Thawley and Button JJ said the following about the operation of s 183(1):

Section 183(1) addresses improper use of information obtained by a person because that person is or was a director, officer of employee of a corporation to gain advantage or cause detriment. …

The central focus of the provision is improper use of information received because one of the identified positions is held in the corporation. The application of s 183(1) requires: (i) precise identification of the information said to have been obtained by the relevant person; (ii) examination of whether that information was obtained because the person is or was a director, officer or employee of the corporation; and (iii) examination of whether the person improperly used the information either: (a) to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else; or (b) to cause detriment to the corporation. …

Section 183 is expressly framed in terms of information obtained because of a particular corporate position. Improper use is assessed objectively according to the standards of conduct that would be expected of a person in the relevant position. What would be expected is determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person. The question is: what would be expected of a person in the position of the alleged offender by reasonable persons with knowledge of the duties, powers and authority of the position and the circumstances of the case: Byrnes at [25].

(Emphasis in original)

Evidence in support of the application

32 In support of their application, the applicants rely upon the affidavits of Professor Eggleton and Mr Orhan.

33 Professor Eggleton is a Professor of Physics at the University of Sydney. He gave expert evidence. There was no objection to his expertise or his capacity to give expert evidence on the matters he addressed. He gave evidence that he was provided with a copy of the Mid-Concept Report and the PCT application. He was asked to consider whether there is any information in the Mid-Concept Report that is contained in the PCT application.

34 Professor Eggleton noted that the PCT application “[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

35 He then provides examples of where:

(1) the concept of a [REDACTED] [REDACTED] is referred to in the Mid-Concept Report; and

(2) the PCT application referred to “technical advantages” (that had been earlier identified in the Report), that are “a direct technical consequence of [REDACTED]”.

36 His conclusions include that “the technical rationale and intended benefit described in both the Mid-Concept Report and the PCT application are substantially aligned”.

37 Professor Eggleton then set out three technical advantages of the use of a [REDACTED] described in the PCT application. He concluded that, from his understanding of the laser system described in the Mid-Concept Report, two of the technical advantages described in the PCT application “are similarly achieved by the laser system design contemplated in the Mid-Concept Report” and the third “does not expand on the fundamental inventive concept of [REDACTED] [REDACTED]”. Professor Eggleton then provides a table of seven non-exhaustive examples of technical concepts that are substantially common to both the Mid-Concept Report and the PCT application.

38 Professor Eggleton then set out his understanding of what the PCT application identified as a [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. He stated that such a concept is not referred to in the Mid-Concept Report, “[h]owever, this concept involves the use of, and is dependent upon, the [REDACTED] [REDACTED], which is a concept that is clearly disclosed in and emphasised throughout the Mid-Concept Report”.

39 The applicants also rely upon the affidavit of Mr Orhan who gave evidence of the initial mandate given to the team [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. The evidence outlined that, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED].

40 Mr Orhan described “[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]”. These included:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

41 Mr Orhan said the following about the PCT application:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

42 Under cross-examination in relation to paragraph (b) in this quote, Mr Pahlavani accepted that the project team at EOS “conceived or considered the use of [REDACTED]”, although he sought to qualify that concession by saying that the systems were “completely different” and “incompatible”, and “would not merge together in any mechanism … which would put anyone’s IP at risk, myself included”.

43 Mr Orhan also gave evidence that:

[REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

44 Under cross-examination, Mr Pahlavani did not dispute that this occurred, although he sought to qualify his answer in the way set out above at [42].

45 Mr Orhan described the matters in [40] and [41] as having been confidential and not known outside the project team apart from a few people subject to non-disclosure agreements. This evidence was objected to, but was admitted into evidence on the basis of Mr Orhan’s understanding as to what was being treated as confidential. He also gave evidence that there was substantial overlap between Figure 4 in the Mid-Concept Report (depicting a [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and Figure 1 in the PCT application (depicting a [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED].

46 When describing Item 9 in Mr Pahlavani’s Disclosure, Mr Orhan said: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED].

47 In my view, focusing only on the alleged contravention of s 183(1) of the Corporations Act, and subject to what will be said below, the applicants have established that there is a serious question to be tried. On the face of this evidence, in particular the uncontested evidence given by Professor Eggleton, concepts that formed part of the EOS project on the Laser Rifle (to which Mr Pahlavani contributed and in relation to which he had access) are concepts forming part of the PCT application. I accept the applicants’ submission that there is commonality between the features of the Laser Rifle being developed by the applicants, as reflected in the Mid-Concept Report (authored by Mr Pahlavani), and what is put forward by the respondents in the PCT application. There is a serious question to be tried as to whether Mr Pahlavani improperly used information obtained because he was an EOS employee to gain an advantage for himself and for RedTail.

48 Relying on Blatch v Archer [1774] EngR 2; (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969, counsel for Mr Pahlavani submitted that care must be taken with the drawing of inferences in circumstances where (a) the applicants rely upon a mid-project report and (b) there is evidence that a final report is available. While it is correct to observe that the evidence “is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted” (Blatch at 970), it is unclear what inferences are said to be unsafe to draw in circumstances where Mr Pahlavani accepts that he authored the two reports. It is unlikely that the failure to adduce a final report could be used as a basis to draw an inference that the final report would have been unfavourable to the applicants: see Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; 247 CLR 345 at [168] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

The respondents’ submissions

49 The respondents’ submissions in response to the existence of a serious question to be tried can be summarised in the following way.

50 First, that the applicants have not specifically identified the information alleged to be confidential. As indicated earlier, that information was identified by reference to paragraphs [33] and [64] of the Orhan affidavit.

51 In relation to all but one of the items of claimed confidential information identified at paragraph [33] (the exception being paragraph [33(d)]), Mr Pahlavani stated that it was unclear to him what information was being referred to. Nonetheless, he was able to (a) deny that he had used or disclosed the information in question; (b) explain that the system he developed is fundamentally different; and/or (c) point to information that was already publicly available or well known.

52 Mr Pahlavani also engaged with the claimed confidential information at paragraph [64] of the Orhan affidavit, denying the allegation that he has disclosed those matters and, further, identifying public sources for those concepts. He disagreed with Mr Orhan that the matters were confidential and, with a few exceptions, were not known outside the project team. “To the contrary”, he said, “the matters described in paragraph 64 are in each well-known concepts which are publicly available, and in some cases have been made publicly available by the Applicants on their website in advertising the Laser Dazzler product.”

53 In light of Mr Pahlavani’s engagement with these matters, it is difficult to accept the respondents’ proposition that the claimed confidential information was not identified with sufficient precision.

54 Secondly, that the information relied upon is not confidential. This submission had various strands. As already indicated, Mr Pahlavani provided evidence to support the proposition that many of the matters referred to in paragraphs [33] and [64] of the Orhan affidavit are publicly known.

55 The respondents also pointed to an International Search Report, prepared by the Australian Patent Office, in relation to the PCT application. The Australian Patent Office, as the International Searching Authority, provided its opinion on the PCT application. The report concluded that Claims 1 and 21 of the PCT application were not novel when compared to an earlier United States patent application (referred to in the report as document “D1”). It also concluded that Claims 1-2 and 4-22 lacked an inventive step. Only Claim 3 was novel and had an inventive step (but it would appear that Claim 3 is not a matter suggested on any basis to contain confidential information over which the applicants assert a claim). A [REDACTED] [REDACTED] was a feature of Claim 1 (amongst others). It has been noted above at [38] that Professor Eggleton gave evidence that, in his opinion, such a concept “involves the use of, and is dependent upon, the [REDACTED] [REDACTED], which is a concept that is clearly disclosed in and emphasised throughout the Mid-Concept Report”. And, it was submitted by the respondents that (a) Claim 1 had the features of a [REDACTED] and a [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and (b) the D1 patent application had those features.

56 On this basis, it was submitted that the Australian Patent Office has determined that Claims 1, 2 and 4 to 22 of the PCT application were publicly known as at the priority date of the PCT application (being 13 December 2024).

57 Furthermore, it is argued that Mr Pahlavani has had discussions with potential investors and customers which have described the product in the patent applications. The information is now in the public domain and the respondents drew particular support from Cashman v Ackland [2001] NSWSC 863 at [6]. However, whether “[t]he vast bulk of the horse has bolted”, and “[o]nly a small amount of the information which is in any way discrete remains unrevealed”, are matters that cannot be determined on the evidence at this stage of the proceeding. It is unclear at this stage whether an injunction would “be futile”.

58 The answer to the various strands of this second submission can be reduced to the following two points. Whether the information lacks the element of confidence may well provide an answer to the applicants’ claims at trial. However, that position is not presently clear on the evidence before me and, consequently, it does not displace the existence of a serious question to be tried.

59 Furthermore, at least for a contravention of s 183(1) of the Corporations Act, the question will be whether the respondents have improperly used information. That would appear to depend, at least in part, on the terms of Mr Pahlavani’s contract of employment (see New Aim at [149]), including in this case:

(1) the confidential information provision in cl 21 and the definition of Confidential Information that excludes “information in the public domain otherwise than through a breach of an obligation of confidentiality” (cl 1, emphasis added). Thus, if the information is in the public domain because of such a breach, it will not fall within the exclusion from Confidential Information. Whether public disclosures by Mr Pahlavani would engage the expression “otherwise than through a breach of an obligation of confidentiality”, so as to exclude the information from the public domain qualification, will no doubt be keenly contested at trial. But, at this interlocutory stage for urgent relief, I am not satisfied that there is thereby no serious question to be tried.

(2) The intellectual property provision in cl 22 that states, amongst other things, that “[a]ll Intellectual Property rights arising from any Works created or developed by [Mr Pahlavani] in the course of [his] employment … will belong to” his employer. Intellectual Property is defined expansively to include not only patents but, also, amongst other things, “any other intellectual or industrial property rights, discovery, invention, secret process or improvement in procedure of any kind” (cl 1). The scope of the clause is not, on its face, defined by reference to the absence of public disclosure.

60 In short, I am not persuaded by what the respondents have said about the claimed absence of confidentiality leading to a conclusion that there is no serious question to be tried.

61 Thirdly, it was submitted that the applicants’ actions have given rise to an estoppel that operates both on this interlocutory application and in the substantive proceeding. The foundation for the estoppel claim is that (a) Mr Pahlavani disclosed that he had a pre-existing project, described in Item 9 of the Disclosure and (b) Dr Webb and Mr Hilton-Cowie represented that EOS agreed that he could continue to own and develop the laser system described in that item.

62 The email exchanges between Mr Pahlavani and Dr Webb and Mr Hilton-Cowie give rise to various obscurities. On the one hand, Mr Pahlavani identified in the Disclosure that he had a concept involving a hand-held Laser Cannon. On the other hand, the description is brief and unspecific about its intended application(s); and there is no evidence to suggest that the project described in Item 9 involved the core concepts of a [REDACTED] and a [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. I was taken to a photograph of what Mr Pahlavani described as an item he worked on (prior to his employment with EOS) which underpinned the idea of the Laser Cannon. However, I did not find that particularly helpful in understanding the scope of Item 9 of the Disclosure.

63 Furthermore, while Mr Pahlavani raised the potential overlap in projects with Mr Hilton-Cowie in an email exchange in mid-March/early April 2023, he then on 26 April 2023 authored the draft Mid-Concept Report that was marked “confidential” and stated that the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. Furthermore, as the applicants submitted, it is not the Laser Cannon that is the subject of the PCT application.

64 In any event, it is clear that in contemporaneous communications between Mr Pahlavani and Mr Hilton-Cowie, Mr Pahlavani was reminded, and acknowledged, that he could not draw upon EOS’ intellectual property to any extent. That arose in the context of Mr Pahlavani seeking permission to establish his own business whilst working at EOS Defence Systems. In response to queries about the scope of work to be undertaken, Mr Pahlavani said the following:

(1) In response to a statement that “no EOS IP is to be shared”, Mr Pahlavani replied: “Yup that’s fine; the clarifier here that I would use is if a concept is explained in a paper or textbook, it’s ok to discuss. If it is concealed EOS IP, or specific detailed [sic] about EOS product construction, it would not. Please clarify otherwise”; and

(2) In response to a question whether there was “any risk, at all, of potential/actual conflicts of interests arising” and “if yes, we should get some detail”, Mr Pahlavani replied: “No; If there is ambiguity regarding conflict of interest I will communicate with EOS to seek advice”.

65 A letter dated 24 March 2023 from Mr Hilton-Cowie to Mr Pahlavani giving him permission to set up his own business, contained the following statements:

(1) “that the terms of your employment contract with EOS, as originally signed by you on 25 November 2020, shall continue to apply in their entirety” (this included the confidential information and intellectual property clauses referred to above);

(2) “that the type of work you engage in, in your consultancy practice, will not draw upon any EOS’ Intellectual Property to any extent (of course you may draw upon/utilise any IP, concepts and ideas and the like as may be publicly available, however, concealed/non-publicly available EOS IP, or specific detailed [sic] about EOS product construction, is not to drawn upon/utilised/referenced [sic] in any way)”; and

(3) “as a general rule, you are to please keep your EOS reporting manager abreast of your activities and customers so that EOS can assured [sic] as to the nature of your ongoing consultancy activities”.

66 Mr Pahlavani signed the letter acknowledging its contents on 27 March 2023.

67 Whether estoppel can be established will be a matter for trial. The question is whether the possibility of an estoppel argument is sufficiently clear to deny the applicants’ claims the character of a serious question to be tried. Because of the obscurities mentioned above, in my view it is not.

Balance of convenience

68 The applicants submitted that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction.

Applicants’ submissions

69 First, if allowed to proceed, the PCT application and the provisional patent application will become public on or about 18 June 2026. It was submitted that the confidentiality of the information will be permanently destroyed. Ms Widmaier gave evidence that:

(1) the information will be publicly accessible and searchable to any person who has access to the internet;

(2) as such, the concepts disclosed in those documents will no longer be confidential and EOS will no longer be able to protect the confidential information;

(3) if EOS were not able to commercialise its product, it will lead to lost future sales and significant waste of invested resources; and

(4) “once such information has been disclosed, competitors … could potentially reverse-engineer or replicate the technology without bearing equivalent costs”.

70 Ms Widmaier also gave evidence that:

(1) There is a real commercial risk to EOS if the patent applications are published. There was express reference to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. I admitted the evidence subject to weight. Because it is impossible for the respondents and the Court to test these assertions, I have given this evidence little weight.

(2) The publication of the PCT application would hinder any efforts of EOS to make sales to any other prospective clients in light of their insistence on strict confidentiality protocols relating to such products. This was said to be for reasons including:

(a) Defence weapons systems are developed largely for government defence customers. Disclosure would compromise the operational security of those systems and potentially endanger the lives of military personnel and civilians who rely on the technology remaining secret. Customers mandate confidentiality precisely because disclosure could reveal capabilities, vulnerabilities, or technical specifications that adversaries could exploit.

(b) Government defence procurement depends heavily on trust and security clearances. If EOS is perceived as unable to protect classified or sensitive information, it will be excluded from future tenders and lose its position on approved supplier panels — a loss that may never be recoverable.

71 I admitted this evidence on the understanding that the reference to “classified” in paragraph (b) was to be understood as a classification applied within EOS. What has been deposed by Ms Widmaier at [70(2)(a) and (b)] is relevant because it is the evidence of a person with direct knowledge, as the applicants’ legal counsel, of the applicants’ operations and market for its products. In any event, I would be prepared to draw reasonable inferences to that effect from the character of the industry in which EOS operates, and the nature of their products.

72 Secondly, even if the applicants were entitled to any patent arising from the PCT application, that would not ameliorate the harm that has been identified.

73 Thirdly, the applicants accept that they may need to give an undertaking as to damages which would protect the respondents’ position. Fourthly, and by contrast to the third point, the respondents do not have the means to meet an adverse pecuniary relief order. Thus, even if damages were an adequate remedy, there would likely be no compensation of the applicants.

Respondents’ submissions

74 The respondents submitted that the balance of convenience weighs heavily in their favour.

75 First, the respondents would suffer the following material prejudice:

(1) It was submitted that an injunction would put an end to the current patent applications. It was agreed by the parties that (a) the 12-month period following the filing of the provisional patent application (on 13 December 2024) has now expired; (b) it would not be possible for the respondents to file a new complete application that claims the same priority date as the PCT application; and (c) any new application filed by the respondents would be given a priority date on the date on which it is filed and that the novelty and inventiveness of any new application will be tested against information publicly available now, rather than the information that was available at the time the respondents filed the provisional patent application on 13 December 2024.

(2) Consequently, there will be a lost opportunity to seek patent protection in multiple jurisdictions, including [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] on the basis of the current priority date.

(3) Financial compensation for the lost opportunity would not be an adequate remedy because it would be extremely difficult to lead evidence to calculate the value of the lost chance to commercialise in those jurisdictions.

(4) The investment of [REDACTED] (significant in amount for a startup with no revenue) in the patent applications will be wasted.

(5) The respondents will be unable to obtain investment in RedTail’s business because investors will be unwilling to invest in a product without patent protection. It is said that that will be catastrophic for the respondents’ business.

76 Secondly, the proffered undertaking will be insufficient to adequately ameliorate that prejudice. Because the current priority date will be unable to be revived, damages would not be an adequate remedy.

77 Thirdly, the applicants have delayed bringing this application.

78 Fourthly, the applicants approach the Court with unclean hands, first because of the matters that formed the basis of the estoppel claim dealt with earlier in these reasons and also because EOS has failed to pay Mr Pahlavani a $10,000 bonus. I have explained earlier in these reasons that the estoppel claim is not sufficiently clear on the evidence adduced on this interlocutory application. It is difficult then to attach much weight to it. There is even less evidence about the bonus claimed by Mr Pahlavani.

79 Fifthly, the respondents rely upon matters dealt with earlier in these reasons: that the applicants have failed to properly specify the alleged confidential information; that what has been identified is demonstrably not confidential; given the respondents’ disclosures to investors since the provisional application was filed, any suggested prejudice to the applicants has already come to pass; and the mandatory character of the injunction. I have explained earlier in these reasons that I am not persuaded by the strength of these arguments and, accordingly, I have not given them significant weight.

80 Finally, the respondents also submitted that an alternative mechanism suggested to the applicants, of seeking the redaction of passages from the PCT application, was left on the table by the applicants in favour of the current urgent application for relief. It was said that that counted as a discretionary matter in the respondents’ favour. However, counsel conceded during the hearing that there would be no guarantee that such an option would be effective. That tends against the suggested mechanism being seen as a reasonable alternative available to the applicants. I also consider there is merit to the applicants’ submission that it would be difficult to see what would be left of the PCT application if redactions were sought in relation to the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. Accordingly, I give this discretionary factor little if any weight.

Consideration

81 As to the remaining discretionary considerations not already addressed, I accept that the applicants have made out a case for prejudice. On the evidence before me, there are similarities between, on the one hand, the concepts that formed part of the EOS project (to which Mr Pahlavani had access and in relation to which the report authored by Mr Pahlavani claimed novelty) and, on the other hand, the concepts forming the basis of the PCT application. I accept that public disclosure of the patent applications will have adverse financial and reputational consequences for the applicants. I also accept that, given the uncontested evidence of the respondents’ limited financial means, damages would not provide an adequate remedy.

82 I also accept that the respondents will suffer detriment. If the PCT application is withdrawn, the respondents will lose their priority date. The prospect of that detriment is somewhat diminished, although it is unclear to what extent, by the Australian Patent Office’s opinion as the International Searching Authority (referred to earlier in these reasons). Only Claim 3 was considered novel and having an inventive step. It is also unclear to what extent the respondents’ claims are not capable of remediation by damages. The loss of a chance may well create some challenges for any assessment of damages, but I am not persuaded that the lost opportunity from the forced withdrawal of the PCT application (and the detriment that is parasitic on that lost opportunity) is not compensable in the ordinary way. The applicants have offered the usual undertaking, and it is uncontested that they have the financial means to satisfy an award for damages.

83 I accept the respondents’ submissions that there has been a delay in bringing this application. The evidence demonstrated that the applicants, when represented by former solicitors, put their allegations to the respondents in October 2025. On 2 October 2025, the applicants’ former solicitors wrote to Mr Pahlavani stating the following:

(1) “We write to notify you of concerns that have arisen in relation to your use of intellectual property developed during your employment with EOS as a Laser Engineer”; and

(2) “It is EOS’ position that the intellectual property you are currently utilising was developed during your employment with the company and is, therefore, owned by EOS pursuant to the terms of your employment contract”.

84 Mr Pahlavani’s solicitors then replied on 10 October 2025. The letter contained the following paragraph:

[W]e are instructed that prior to joining EOS, Mr Pahlavani had developed several novel concepts for potential future development. These concepts were disclosed to EOS so as to ensure that Mr Pahlavani’s pre-existing intellectual property was understood by EOS. Since leaving EOS, Mr Pahlavani has pursued these areas of research and has not undertaken any further work in developing the systems he was working on for EOS.

85 There followed denials of infringement of intellectual property and legal or contractual obligations.

86 There was no further communication from the applicants’ solicitors until 31 March 2026 when its new solicitors wrote again to Mr Pahlavani’s solicitors. The letter stated that recent further enquiries had revealed the existence of the provisional patent application (although the application itself remained confidential). The applicants became aware of its existence on 16 February 2026 – the day the new solicitors were engaged and undertook a search of the database maintained by IP Australia.

87 The letter of 31 March 2026 requested:

[A] copy of Australian Patent Application No. 2024904131 as filed with the Australian Patent Office and copies of any other patent applications filed by your clients (including any PCT application), or in which your clients are named as an inventor; …

88 Importantly, the search undertaken by the applicants’ solicitors would not have revealed the existence of the PCT application.

89 There followed negotiations between the parties to arrange the terms upon which information would be produced and assessed. It is not necessary to set out that correspondence in detail. It is enough to note that, despite requests from 31 March 2026, the existence of the PCT application was not revealed by the respondents to the applicants until 13 May 2026.

90 It was suggested by counsel for the respondents in oral submissions that, when searching the IP Australia website, the filing date of 13 December 2024 was readily observable and that was the time that enquiries should have been made. While I accept that there has been unexplained delay from 16 February 2026 to 31 March 2026, the timely revelation by the respondents of the PCT application would have allowed a more comfortable timeline for the hearing of the present application. It somewhat diminishes the respondents’ claims that the applicants have approached the Court with unclean hands.

91 On balance, I accept the applicants’ submissions that the balance of convenience is in their favour.

Disposition

92 I am satisfied that the applicants have made out a case for the mandatory injunction they seek and I will make that order.

93 The applicants seek an order for costs. I will give the parties an opportunity to make further written submissions on the appropriate costs order arising from these reasons.

I certify that the preceding ninety-three (93) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stellios.

Associate:

Dated: 4 June 2026

Top