Amir Moezzi v Romolo Lorenzo Bertani [2026] APO 4

1. Patent 2018255486 (the "patent") was filed on 19April 2018 and entered national phase from PCT/AU2018/050353 on 11 November 2019. The patent has an earliest priority date of 19 April 2017. At the time of entering national phase the applicant was Romolo Lorenzo Bertani (the "Patentee" or "Mr Bertani"), while the inventors were given as Mr Bertani and Amir Moezzi (the "Requestor" or "Dr Moezzi"). The patentee and inventor details have not changed between the filing date and the present.
2. A request under s191A(2) of the Patents Act 1990 (the "Act") was filed by Dr Moezzi on 4 April 2025 (the "request"). The Patentee advised the Commissioner of its intention to defend its entitlement to the Application on 12 May 2025.
   1. While Dr Moezzi filed some evidentiary material with the request, a delegate of the Commissioner wrote to him asking if he intended to file any further evidence in support of his request. After receiving an answer in the affirmative, the delegate ultimately proposed and made directions for the filing of evidence by both parties, and the Requestor completed the filing of its evidence in support ("EIS") on 20 June 2025. Despite having the opportunity to file evidence in answer to the EIS, ultimately the Patentee did not, nor did it seek an extension of time to, file evidence. Rather, the Patentee sought, unsuccessfully, to stay the matter in view of pending proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW.
3. It is thus the case that the only evidence in this matter comprises that filed by Dr Moezzi with the request and on 20 June 2025. I will collectively refer to this material as the EIS, and observe that it comprises the following:
4. A request for correction of inventorship, dated 12 March 2020, with respect to US 16/607052 (the "US inventorship correction"). US 16/607052 is the US national phase application of PCT/AU2018/050353 ;
   • A US patent assignment cover sheet, dated 27 September 2021, with respect to US 16/607052, accompanied by a deed of assignment ("US cover sheet");
   • A deed of assignment concerning PCT/AU2018/050353 and its provisional application AU 2017901425, the deed dated 26 April 2018 (the "assignment deed"). This deed is identical to the one that accompanied the US cover sheet;
5. A copy of US 2020/0063534 A1 published on 27 February 2020 , being the "A" level publication of US 16/607052;
   • The statement of entitlement for the patent ("SOE"), filed on 24 March 2022;
   • An email chain between Dr Moezzi and Mr John Dower of FPA patent attorneys, representing the Patentee, extending between 3 March 2025 and 6 March 2025 (the "email chain");
   • a rather lengthy document comprising exhibits as follows, which, where noted, reproduces other material already in evidence:

Handwritten design and process notes by Dr Moezzi concerning the patent

An email sent on 30 November 2016 by Dr Moezzi to Mr Dower and cc'ed to Mr Bertani on

An email chain between Dr Moezzi, Mr Bertani and Mr Dower on 10 April 2017

Emails between Dr Moezzi and Mr Peter Chin, cc'ing Mr Bertani, on 30 November 2016

The assignment deed, but with some annotations added by Dr Moezzi for this matter.

A US patent assignment cover sheet and deed of assignment

The US cover sheet, but with some annotations added by Dr Moezzi for this matter.

A tax invoice from Dr Moezzi's company, Avocado Engineering Pty Ltd ("Avocado Engineering"), to Mr Bertani's company, Annsca Energy Pty Ltd ("Annsca")

A letter sent on behalf of Annsca and Mr Bertani by LCI Legal to Dr Moezzi.

A letter sent on behalf of Annsca and Mr Bertani by LCI Legal to Dr Moezzi in his capacity as managing director of Avocado Engineering, an email (in Italian and with a translation) from Mr Gian Droli to Mr Bertani and an email from Mr Droli to Mr Bertani, Dr Moezzi and Mr Roger Black.

6 March 2025 (for the email from Mr Droli to Mr Bertani)

3 August 2018 (for the email from Mr Droli to Mr Bertani, Dr Moezzi and Mr Black.)

An email chain between Mr John Dower of FPA and Dr Moezzi

A letter from Dr Moezzi to the US firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

An email chain between Dr Moezzi and Mr Dower comprising, amongst other things, the sending of Exhibit F6 to Mr Dower and Mr Dower's response

The email chain of(?) Exhibit F8, but with an additional response by Dr Moezzi on 6 March 2025.

A letter from Dr Moezzi to LCI Legal and Mr Bertani. This letter responds to the letter of (?) Exhibit F2.

An agreement between Dr Moezzi and Annsca concerning an exchange of shares in Annsca for Dr Moezzi's time and stating that Annsca's intellectual property remains its own.

A request for correction of inventorship with respect to US 16/607052.

A video comparing electronic signatures of Exhibits E1 and E2 to the signature on the assignment deed.

1. I note that there was some other material, filed by Dr Moezzi alongside, or as part of, the EIS, that does not appear to be evidentiary in nature and has not been enumerated above. This includes an email statement by Dr Moezzi dated 4 April 2025 ("statement1") and the first seven pages of Exhibit A, which comprise another statement by Dr Moezzi dated 20 June 2025 ("statement2"). Both statement1 and statement2 comprise what would be understood to be submissions by Dr Moezzi in support of his entitlement case, and I have treated these as such.
2. After the closing of evidence, both parties indicated their preference for the hearing to proceed by way of written submissions. A delegate of the Commissioner provided a timetable for these, and Dr Moezzi filed his written submissions in support (the "submissions") on 16 October 2025. No written submissions were filed by the Patentee in the time period allotted, and the Patentee's representatives confirmed by phone call on 18 November 2025 that the Patentee would not be filing any submissions in answer to the submissions[1].

1. The invention described in the patent concerns, as per its title, contaminant extraction in a borehole As discussed under the "Background of the Invention" of the patent[2] the drilling of a borehole for the purposes of extracting hydrocarbons or fracking typically comprises the placement of cement in the annulus formed between the rock of the borehole and a casing inserted in the borehole[3]. The patent notes that gaps can arise between the casing and the rock or the casing and the cement due to adhesion issues and the structural or chemical failure of the cement over time[4]. This can lead to contaminants travelling through such gaps and contaminating a water permeable layer (and therefore potentially water supplies) through which the borehole extends or greenhouse gases, such as methane or carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere via these gaps[5]. The patent then observes that:

"It is desirable to reduce or minimise contamination of a water permeable layer. It is also desirable to capture these stray greenhouse gases to reduce or minimise the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the wellbore[6]."

2. The "background" is then followed by a "Summary of the invention"[7]. This comprises a series of consistory statements that are essentially congruent with the claims or broad statements covering various aspects of the invention described, which deals in general terms with a system for contaminant extraction. The "summary" is followed by a "Brief description of the drawings[8]", which is self-explanatory.
3. The nature of the invention disclosed in the patent is best understood by reference to the "Detailed description of the embodiments"[9] with reference to the drawings.
   1. In that regard figure 1A., reproduced below, illustrates a first embodiment of the invention as described. This figure shows a system for contaminant extraction 100 with respect to a borehole 107 which extends from the surface 101 through a water permeable zone 102 and into a production zone 114. An outer casing 105 extends into the borehole 107 from wellhead 104, with cement 120 potentially being provided in the annulus between outer casing 105 and the wall of borehole 107. An inner casing 106 also extends from wellhead 104 into the borehole 107 and is concentrically located in the outer casing 105 with the annular space between the inner and outer casings 105, 106 forming an intermediate zone 110.
   2. A filter assembly 108 comprising a series of filter modules 109, coupled end to end, is located in the intermediate zone 110 for filtering of contaminants that have escaped from the production zone 114. The lower stage of the filter assembly 108 comprises a series of perforated filter modules 127 for filtering solid contaminants, whilst the upper stage comprises a series of non-perforated filter modules 128 for filtering liquid and gaseous contaminants. A funnel 113 is located at the end of the outer casing 105 and directs contaminants from the production zone 114 into a filter assembly 108. An overhead gantry 104A, located at the wellhead 104, supports a motor operated cable drum 104B which can raise and lower cables 111 connected to a support cradle 112. The cables 111 and the support cradle 112 are used to lower the filter assembly 108 into the intermediate zone 110.

1. The filter modules 109 capture fluidic contaminants such as hydrogen sulphide, methyl mercaptan or heavy elements, while a seal 122 provided above the filter assembly 108 but below the surface 101 prevents the egress of gaseous contaminants that may have escaped the filter assembly 108 from leaking into the atmosphere. Gases purified by the filter modules 109, such as methane, ethane and carbon dioxide, can exit a seal 122 via openings that allow these to pass into the overlying collection zone 124. Desirable and now purified gases that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere can then be added to the gases collected from the production zone 114 via an outlet pipe 125A from the inner casing 106, using a venturi ejector pump 126 and an outlet pipe 125B from the overlying collection zone 124. Although not shown, the system 100 may also comprise a separator downstream of the venturi ejector pump 126 to separate different fluids.
2. In terms of other benefits of the filtering arrangement, the patent observes[10]:

"The filter modules 109 may also alleviate issues with sealing the production casing 106 and the surrounding rock wall of the borehole 107 in the regions around the boundary of the production zone 114, whereby a poor seal may result in fluid (e.g. tracking fluids, geothermal fluids or hydrocarbons) or gaseous contaminants leaking from the production zone 114 along or around the production casing 106. > > The filter assembly 108 also captures contaminants that may have leaked within or around the portion of the borehole 107 located below the filter assembly 108. Such leakage may include instances where the outer casing 105, the production casing 106, the cement 120 or rock wall of the borehole 107 located below the filter assembly 108 have deteriorated or failed causing a leak of contaminants. > > In the illustrated embodiment of Figure 1A part of the filter assembly 108 is located below the water permeable layer 102. This configuration may reduce or minimise contamination of the water permeable layer 102 and possible resultant contamination of water supplies. > > The filter assembly 108 also reduces or minimises the release of gaseous contaminants into the atmosphere by capturing these contaminants before they are released at the surface 101 and into the atmosphere."

3. A second embodiment of the invention is illustrated in figures 10A to 10D, of which figure 10A is reproduced below. This shows a system for contaminant extraction 1200 similar to the system 100 discussed above, except for the following differences. One difference between the two embodiments is that in the second system 1200 the non-perforated filter modules 1286 are located external to the borehole 107 above the surface 101. Gases that have passed through perforated filters 127A, 127B located in the intermediate zone 110 are collected at a sealing cap 1216 and then directed by an outlet pipe 1214 through the non-perforated filter modules 1286 under the action of a vacuum pump 1202 and then stored in a tank 1204. Another difference is that in the second system 1200, unfiltered or raw fluid from the inner casing 106 is extracted and passes into a storage tank 1212 using the venturi ejector pump 126 and outlet pipes 125A, 125B.
4. A third embodiment of the contaminant extraction system is depicted in figures 11A to 11C (not reproduced here). This is essentially the same as the second embodiment, but with the non-perforated filter modules located in an underground, or below-ground, pit external to the borehole. It is unnecessary for present purposes to go into any further details or differences concerning the third embodiment.

1. The patent describes, but does not illustrate, a fourth embodiment of the contaminant extraction system as follows[11]:

"In a fourth embodiment, a system for contaminant extraction may have a structure similar to that shown in Figures 1A, 10A-10D and 11A-11C comprising a filter assembly 108 having a lower filtering stage and primary upper filtering stage located within the borehole 107 and a secondary upper filtering stage located externally of the borehole 107. Within the borehole, the lower filtering stage includes a plurality of perforated filter modules 127a, 127b for filtering solid contaminants and a primary upper filtering stage includes a plurality of non-perforated filter modules 128a for filtering fluid contaminants, including liquid and gaseous contaminants. The fluids and gases are then extracted from the borehole 107 for further filtering by a secondary upper filtering stage including a plurality of serially connected non-perforated gas or fluid filter modules 128b located externally of the borehole 107."

2. The balance of the "Detailed description of the embodiments" discusses various, and essentially structural, embodiments of the filter assemblies/filter modules, filter bags, filter media, the funnel, the support cradle, arrangements for aligning the filter modules and methods for using the contaminant extraction systems. It is not necessary for present purposes to go into these in any detail.

1. The patent comprises 13 claims of which claims 1, 12 and 13 are independent. The independent claims are reproduced below. It is not necessary for present purposes to reproduce the entire claim set.

1. A system for contaminant extraction in a borehole extending from a surface of the Earth through a water permeable layer and into an underlying production zone, the system comprising: > > an outer casing located within the borehole and extending through the water permeable layer; > > a production pipe located within the casing and extending towards the production zone; > > a filter assembly, at least part of which occupies at least part of an intermediate zone between the outer casing and the production pipe, wherein the filter assembly is configured to capture contaminants before they enter the water permeable layer and/or before they are released into the atmosphere, the filter assembly comprising: > > a lower filtering stage configured to filter solid contaminants; and > > an upper filtering stage including a series of non-perforated filter modules located externally of the borehole and configured to filter fluid contaminants migrating from the production zone through the lower filtering stage; > > lowering and raising means for lowering and raising the lower filtering stage which occupies the intermediate zone; and > > sealing means for preventing the uncontrolled leakage of contaminants from the intermediate zone, wherein the lower filtering stage comprises a perforated housing arrangement, the perforated housing arrangement comprising one or more perforated filter modules configured to filter solid contaminants and permit entry of fluid contaminants migrating from the production zone into the upper filtering stage of the filter assembly. > > 12. A system for contaminant extraction in a borehole extending from a surface of the Earth through a water permeable layer and into an underlying production zone, the system comprising: > > an outer casing located within the borehole and extending through the water permeable layer; > > a production pipe located within the casing and extending towards the production zone; > > a filter assembly, at least part of which occupies at least part of an intermediate zone between the outer casing and the production pipe, wherein the filter assembly is configured to capture contaminants before they enter the water permeable layer and/or before they are released into the atmosphere, the filter assembly comprising: > > a lower filtering stage configured to filter solid contaminants, including at least one solids filtering module; and > > an upper filtering stage including a series of non-perforated filter modules located externally of the borehole and configured to filter fluid contaminants migrating from the production zone through the lower filtering stage; > > lowering means for lowering the at least one upper filtering module down the borehole on a plurality of cables towards the production zone; and > > sealing means for preventing the uncontrolled leakage of contaminants from the intermediate zone, > > wherein the lower filtering stage comprises a perforated housing arrangement, the perforated housing arrangement comprising one or more perforated filter modules configured to filter solid contaminants and permit entry of fluid contaminants migrating from the production zone into the upper fluids filtering stage of the filter assembly. > > 13. A method for contaminant extraction in a borehole extending from a surface of the Earth through a water permeable layer and into an underlying production zone, the borehole including an outer casing cemented within the borehole and extending through the water permeable layer, and a production pipe within the casing and extending towards the production zone, the method including; > > providing a filter assembly, at least part of which occupies at least part of an intermediate zone between the outer casing and the production pipe, to capture contaminants before they enter the water permeable layer or before they are released into the atmosphere, the filter assembly including: > > a lower filtering stage configured to filter solid contaminants, including at least one solids filtering module; and > > a fluids filtering stage including a series of non-perforated filter modules located externally of the borehole and configured to filter fluid contaminants migrating from the production zone through the lower filtering stage; > > fitting the at least one solids filtering module between the outer casing and the production pipe; > > lowering the at least one solids filtering module down the borehole on a plurality of cables towards the production zone; > > sealing the intermediate zone at an uppermost portion of the outer casing to prevent the uncontrolled leakage of contaminants from the intermediate zone; and > > extracting filtered gas though the upper filtering stage for collection and storage, > > wherein the lower filtering stage comprises a perforated housing arrangement, the perforated housing arrangement comprising one or more perforated filter modules configured to filter solid contaminants and permit entry of fluid contaminants migrating from the production zone into the upper fluids filtering stage of the filter assembly.

1. In summary, the s191A(2) request asserted that Dr Moezzi's rights in the invention were transferred without his knowledge or consent, and that this was done based on an assignment document that Dr Moezzi alleges is fraudulent.

1. Section 191A(2) to 191A(4) of the Act reads as follows:

"(2) The Commissioner must, on application, make a declaration as to a person's entitlement to a patent, or a share in a patent, if the Commissioner is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Register does not properly record a person's entitlement to a patent, or a share in a patent:

(a) because the patent, or a share in the patent, was granted to a person who was not entitled to it; or

(b) because the patent, or a share in the patent, was not granted to a person who was entitled to it; or

(3) If the Commissioner makes a declaration under subsection (2), the Commissioner must rectify the Register accordingly.

(4) The Commissioner must not make a declaration under subsection (2), or rectify the Register under subsection (3), without first giving the following persons a reasonable opportunity to be heard:

(a) the person whose entitlement is not properly recorded by the Register;

(b) any person whose entitlement to the patent, or a share in the patent, is recorded in the Register."

"Subject to this Act, a patent for an invention may only be granted to a person who:

(a) is the inventor; or

(b) would, on the grant of a patent for the invention, be entitled to have the patent assigned to the person; or

(c) derives title to the invention from the inventor or a person mentioned in paragraph (b); or

(d) is the legal representative of a deceased person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c)."

That is a patent may be granted to the inventor of an invention or someone who derives title to the invention from an inventor, and it is these "entitled" persons for the purposes of s15 who are recorded as patentees in the Register.

1. The law on entitlement was considered in University of Western Australia v Gray [2009] FCAFC 116 ("UWA") and Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 9 ("Polwood"). In particular, steps for determining entitlement are apparent from [253] of UWA as part of a broader discussion from [253] to [256]. These steps may be given for present purposes as follows:
   1. identify the "inventive concept" of the invention as defined in the claims.
   2. determine inventorship including the person responsible for the inventive concept and the time of conception as distinct from its verification and reduction into practice.
   3. determine whether any contractual or fiduciary relationships give rise to proprietary rights in the invention.
2. With respect to contractual and fiduciary duties, it is generally the case that entitlement to an invention developed by an employee in the course of their employment that affects the business of their employer rests with that employer, although the mere fact that there is an employer/employee relationship does not automatically lead to entitlement for the employer:

"The law is well settled upon the position of an officer or employee who makes an invention affecting the business of his or her employer. It is an implied term of employment that any invention or discovery made in the course of the employment of the employee in doing that which he is engaged and instructed to do during the time of his employment, and during working hours, and using the materials of his employers, is the property of the employer and not of the employee. Having made a discovery or invention in course of such work, the employee becomes a trustee for the employer of that invention or discovery, and he is therefore as a trustee bound to give the benefit of any such discovery or invention to his employer. But the mere existence of the employer/employee relationship will not give the employer ownership of inventions made by the employee during the term of the relationship. And that is so even if the invention is germane to and useful for the employer's business, and even though the employee may have made use of the employer's time and resources in bringing the invention to completion. Certainly, all the circumstances must be considered in each case, but unless the contract of employment expressly so provides, or an invention is the product of work which the employee was paid to perform, it is unlikely that any invention made by the employee will be held to belong to the employer.[12]"

3. Whether there is an "implied term" to invent as part of the employer/employee relationship was considered as follows in UWA[13]:

"Unsurprisingly, express contractual stipulation apart, with the employer's entitlement turning on that which it was the employee's 'duty' to do - and for which the employee was paid - the recurrent preoccupation in the case law has been in each instance with the actual subject matter and purpose of the employee's engagement itself and with the question: '[w]hat is it that he is employed to do?'; cf LIFFE Administration & Management v Pinkava [2007] 4 All ER 981 (LIFFE) at [97]. The end of this inquiry is to ascertain whether, if at all, it was part of an employee's engagement with his or her employer to utilise his or her 'inventive faculty' (cf Sterling Engineering at 544; Vokes at 136) in an agreed way or for an agreed purpose for the benefit of, or to further the purposes of, the employer. To use the shorthand of Electrolux Ltd v Hudson [1977] FSR 312 at 326, was the employee 'employed to make or discover inventions at all?', or, as French J put it, did the employee have 'a duty to invent?' > > If the employee's invention is the, or a, product of what he or she was employed to do, and did do, it will belong to the employer unless otherwise agreed: see eg British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ltd v Lind (1917) 34 RPC 101 (British Reinforced Concrete); Adamson v Kenworthy (1932) 49 RPC 57; Triplex Safety Glass Co v Scorah [1938] 1 Ch 211 (Triplex Safety Glass); and see also Electrolux Ltd, at [97]. In such a case, it would be 'inconsistent with [the employee's] duty to appropriate to himself an invention of this kind': Edisonia Ltd v Forse (1908) 25 RPC 546 at 552. > > By way of contrast, if (a) the employee was not engaged to use his or her inventive capacity at all (cf Re Charles Selz Ltd's Patent Application (1954) 71 RPC 158); or (b) was so engaged only by way of additional duties to use his or her inventive capacity as and when asked (Spencer Industries Pty Ltd v Collins [2003] FCA 542; (2003) 58 IPR 425) or only for an agreed purpose, the employer would have in case (a) no claim on the employee's invention at all and in case (b) such a claim only if the invention resulted from a task the employee was asked to perform by way of additional duty or if the invention was related to the effectuation of the agreed purpose. > > We note in passing that it can, on occasion, be factually difficult to define the subject matter over which a particular employee's inventive responsibility to the employer extends. This may be, for example, because (a) the employee's engagement gives him or her considerable discretion in determining the area of inventive inquiry he or she will pursue for the employer's benefit; or (b) the employee's managerial and inventive responsibilities combined are such that he or she, as a fiduciary, is obliged to give the employer the benefit of any invention developed in the course of his or her employment that is germane to the employer's business (see eg Fine Industrial Commodities Ltd v Powling (1954) 71 RPC 253; see also British Syphon Co Ltd v Homewood (No 2) [1956] All ER 897 which is probably better explained as a breach of fiduciary duty case); or (c) the employee's inventive responsibilities evolve over the course of the employment as a result, for example, of the employment tasks changing: see eg British Reinforced Concrete, at 109."

4. Following the principles outlined in UWA, to decide the request, it is generally necessary to determine the inventive concept, inventorship with respect to the inventive concept and finally whether any contractual or fiduciary relationships give rise to proprietary rights in the invention. However, as discussed further below, the first two of these questions is not in question and the third only to the extent as to whether as assignment document is effective in transferring rights from one inventor to the other inventor or whether Dr Moezzi was in some way an employee of Mr Bertani. Consequently, this decision hinges entirely on issues concerning contractual and fiduciary duties.

1. The terms of s191A(2) make it clear that the Commissioner needs to assess the request on the balance of probabilities. While s191A(2) does not spell out who bears the onus, in my view it is logical that for such requests the moving party bears the onus to prove its case. However, the evidentiary burden may shift under some circumstances, especially when knowledge of relevant facts lies particularly with one party or the other; see Dunlop Holdings Limited's Application [1979] RPC 523 at 542 to 544.

1. Given the crux of the factual matters at the heart of the request, I am also mindful of what was said in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336; [1930] AC 1; 12 ALJ 100; 12 ALJR 100; 44 ALR 334 concerning the fact that the nature and gravity of the conclusions sought to be reached may factor into whether the standard of proof is met. As explained by the High Court in Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; 110 CLR 445; 67 ALJR 170; 110 ALR 449 at [2][14]:

"The ordinary standard of proof required of a party who bears the onus in civil litigation in this country is proof on the balance of probabilities. That remains so even where the matter to be proved involves criminal conduct or fraud_.._. On the other hand, the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact or facts on the balance of probabilities may vary according to the nature of what it is sought to prove. Thus, authoritative statements have often been made to the effect that clear...or strict...proof is necessary 'where so serious a matter as fraud is to be found'...Statements to that effect should not, however, be understood as directed to the standard of proof. Rather, they should be understood as merely reflecting a conventional perception that members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct...and a judicial approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of such conduct. As Dixon J. commented in...: > > 'The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved ...'."

Is Dr Moezzi entitled to a share of the patent?

1. As foreshadowed above, the request comes down to a rather narrow factual basis. There is no dispute or question over whether either of Mr Bertani or Dr Moezzi were co-inventors of the patent or whether Mr Bertani is a patentee. The sole issue for determination is whether Dr Moezzi is also a patentee, and this question is answered by considering: 1) whether Dr Moezzi was in some way an employee of Mr Bertani at the time of conceiving the invention and, if that be in the negative, 2) whether the assignment deed is effective in transferring Dr Moezzi's rights in the patent. I will now consider each of these questions below to the extent necessary.

Was Dr Moezzi an employee of Mr Bertani at the relevant time?

1. Dr Moezzi discusses this issue as part of his request, presumably in view of the fact that the assignment deed, at the section titled "Background" states that "The assignor was employed by the Assignee at the time the invention was made", the assignor being Dr Moezzi with the assignee being Mr Bertani. This is denied by Dr Moezzi[15]. I also note that the patent was only filed in the name of Mr Bertani, with the assignment deed post-dating filing of the patent, as observed by Dr Moezzi in the submissions[16], which also notionally raises the question of whether Dr Moezzi was an employee of Mr Bertani.
   1. Other than the line indicated in the assignment deed, there is no evidence that Dr Moezzi was ever an employee of Mr Bertani or Annsca. If anything, the evidence is suggestive that the relationship between Dr Moezzi and Mr Bertani/Annsca, over an extended period of time, both before, at, and after conception of the invention was that of a collaborator and/or contractor and not that of an employer/employee. This is borne out by the fact that:
   2. Dr Moezzi invoiced Annsca for supply of equipment or services over a period spanning the development of the invention and the years that followed. For example, Exhibits E1 and E2 are invoices dating from 2016 for the supply of equipment from Avocado Engineering to Annsca, while Exhibits F1 and F2 discuss invoices, dating from January and February 2025, from Avocado Engineering to Annsca for services rendered;
   3. Dr Moezzi has consistently used his "Avocado Engineering" email address in his dealings with Mr Bertani and others concerning the intellectual property they were collaborating on. This is apparent from the emails from Exhibits C1 to C3, which date back to 2016 and 2017, Exhibits F3 and F8 to F10, which comprise emails from 2025 or otherwise indicate that Dr Moezzi was still using his Avocado Engineering email address in 2025; and
2. Exhibit G2 comprises an agreement dated 10 April 2014 that specifies Dr Moezzi is receiving 10% of shares in Annsca for work valued at $300000. This was in relation to "FLPS" and "WPPS" technology and was not, as I understand it, to do with to the invention in question, but with respect to shale gas extraction[17]. This is consistent with the fact that Annsca is not and never has been listed as a patentee for the patent.
3. Despite Dr Moezzi challenging Mr Bertani on two occasions concerning his alleged "employment", and asking that he provide any evidence of the same[18], no such evidence was provided to Dr Moezzi nor, as noted, is any such material in evidence in this matter. If Mr Bertani had evidence that Dr Moezzi was employed at the relevant time for the purposes of this matter, then it would be very easy for him to provide evidence to that effect.
4. I am satisfied, in view of the evidence provided by Dr Moezzi, and the fact that Mr Bertani has failed to file any evidence or submissions at all in the matter, that Dr Moezzi was never an employee of Mr Bertani, or of any entities associated with Mr Bertani.

Is the entitlement deed effective in transferring Dr Moezzi's rights in the patent?

1. As may be evident from earlier in this decision, this essentially boils down to the veracity of the assignment deed. Given the preceding discussion, in my view, the assignment deed is at least erroneous to the extent that it represents Dr Moezzi as an employee of Mr Bertani. It is not clear to me that this, per se, debases the assignment deed to the extent it is simply ineffective as a medium of transferring rights.
2. However, Dr Moezzi is emphatic, both in submissions and in the evidence, that he did not sign the assignment deed[19]. In particular, Dr Moezzi asserts that the handwriting on the assignment deed does not match his own, that an electronic signature has been added without his authorisation and that the witness, Mr Bertani's wife, Cristina Bertani, did not witness him signing the deed[20]. Dr Moezzi also points out that there is no record of him being contacted regarding the assignment deed before or around the time of its execution[21].
3. Unsurprisingly, there are no contemporaneous records in evidence that demonstrate Dr Moezzi was sent anything about the assignment deed at or before its execution. If the assignment deed was correctly executed, then the absence of any communication at the time involving Dr Moezzi is extraordinary, and if they do in fact exist, then it would be very easy for Mr Bertani to provide these to the Commissioner. I am satisfied that no correspondence concerning execution of the assignment deed was sent to Dr Moezzi before or around the time of its execution; a fact that is hard to reconcile with the proposition that the assignment deed was correctly executed to begin with.

1. It is quite clear that Dr Moezzi first became aware of the assignment deed in June 2022[22] and that ownership had been transferred solely to Mr Bertani[23], which to put it mildly, is unusual since the assignment deed is dated 26 April 2018. It is thus also rather unusual that Dr Moezzi has done nothing about the assignment deed per se until 2025. In this regard, the submissions provide the following explanation[24]:

"The Requestor did not obtain confirmation of the forged deed's details until March 2025[25], following direct correspondence with the patent attorney (FPA) who had advised Mr Bertani, and only after completing a thorough due diligence review of all available evidence. Until that point, the Requestor was not fully aware of his legal rights or the full extent of the misrepresentation. Once the position became clear and sufficient documentary proof was obtained, the Requestor acted promptly - filing the present section 191A request in April 2025 and submitting supporting evidence accordingly."

4. On the face of it, it is somewhat mysterious that Dr Moezzi states that he was "not fully aware of his legal rights" until March 2025 when he also states that he knew of the assignment of his rights in June 2022. Similarly, it is not clear how Dr Moezzi needed "confirmation" of the assignment deed's details and other documentary proof, given Exhibit A shows he had a copy of the assignment deed no later than 20 June 2022, and had confronted Mr Bertani about the veracity of it at that time. It may be that Mr Bertani managed to mollify or misdirect Dr Moezzi as to the nature and effect of the assignment deed, as seems to be the case in statement2[26]:

"On 20 June 2022, I discovered for the first time the existence of an assignment deed dated 26 April 2018 for Australian patent application 2018255486, which had been submitted to a patent attorney and bore a signature purporting to be mine. > > That same day, I confronted Mr. Romolo Bertani via WhatsApp, shown in Exhibit A, by sending a copy of the document, with a red-marked circle around the forged signature, and asked: > > 'Who signed here with my name?' > > Mr. Bertani denied any knowledge of the document and responded: > > 'Don't know what do you talking about mate... All document I have is the original document you signed at the beginning...' > > This statement appears to refer to the agreement dated 10 April 2014 between myself and Annsca Energy Pty Ltd (Exhibit G1), which Mr. Bertani and his lawyer have since repeatedly tried to invoke to claim that I transferred all intellectual property rights to Annsca Energy or to him personally. This claim is false." (emphasis in original)

5. Notably, Dr Moezzi does not indicate that Mr Bertani in fact misdirected him at the time into believing that the assignment of the patent was covered by Exhibit G1, or confusing the assignment deed with Exhibit G1, or that the assignment deed did not somehow affect Dr Moezzi's rights to the patent. Indeed, it seems highly implausible that someone who comes across as sophisticated as Dr Moezzi does in his submissions and the evidence would be hornswoggled by such a weak response in the face of him knowing at the time that the assignment deed purported to remove his rights to the patent.
6. Having said that, Exhibits F1 and F2 refer to Exhibit G1 as being effective in transferring rights from Dr Moezzi to Mr Bertani, so it appears that Mr Bertani may well be operating on the understanding that he had previously explained away the assignment deed to Dr Moezzi based on Exhibit G1. Perhaps, as implausible as it seems, that was the case and Dr Moezzi had since "wised up" due to other discoveries, such as the fact Mr Bertani had both removed and reinstated him as an inventor on US 16/607052 without Dr Moezzi's knowledge[27]. There is some support in Exhibit F3 for the proposition put by Dr Moezzi at H[4] of the submissions (see [36] above). In that exhibit, an email dated 8 February 2025 refers to a previous phone conversation in which Dr Moezzi had apparently had matters concerning the "assignment" explained to him in some fashion by Mr Dower.
7. It may be that the financial dispute between Dr Moezzi and Mr Bertani over the payment of invoices[28] spurred Dr Moezzi to consider his entitlement to the patent more carefully, particularly as Exhibit F2 intimated that no payment was required due to previous agreements that awarded Dr Moezzi shares for services provided (clearly meaning Exhibit G1). Or the request may be a way for Dr Moezzi to "up the ante" in this dispute with Mr Bertani, or it is perhaps a melange of these and other matters discussed above. While an entirely satisfactory and consistent explanation for Dr Moezzi's delay in bringing the entitlement action does not emerge from the evidence, it does not detract from the error concerning employment in the assignment deed, nor of the other irregularities in the same that I will discuss further below.

1. In that regard, turning to the assignment deed itself, it is quite clear that there are irregularities in the witness signatures. The same witness, Cristina Bertani, has signed with respect to Dr Moezzi and Mr Bertani on the same day. However, the witness signatures are quite clearly so different as to seriously bring into question whether the same person actually signed as witness for both Dr Moezzi and Mr Bertani. 2. Dr Moezzi's arguments that the handwriting for his name and date on the assignment deed does not match his own are perhaps best represented by the following[29]:

"A visual comparison between my handwriting in Exhibit B and the handwritten name and date entries in the purported assignment deed shows clear inconsistencies. For example, the style of the numerals '2,' '4,' and '8,' and the lowercase letters 'm' and 'r' are noticeably different from my handwriting. I also do not use dashes ('-') to separate day, month, and year in date formats - I consistently use slashes ('/') - whereas the deed shows dashes in all date entries throughout the document. > > Notably, the date '26' appears below each of the three handwritten names (my own, Mr Bertani's, and the witness's), and the numeral '2' in each instance is written in an identical and distinctive style, suggesting that all handwritten entries were completed by the same individual. This strongly supports my position that I did not execute this document and that it was improperly completed and submitted without my consent." (emphasis in original)

8. It is not clear to me that each "2" on the assignment deed below each of the signatures are "written in an identical and distinctive style" as asserted by Dr Moezzi. Other than this I do tend to consider that the differences raised by Dr Moezzi in the handwriting between Exhibit B and the assignment document lend plausibility to his contention that he did not sign the assignment document. I note that, at the very least, Dr Moezzi's use of "slashes" in dates is corroborated by his use of this date format in Exhibits F4, F5, F6, F10 and F11 this being the only occasions in the submissions or evidence that Dr Moezzi uses a shortened date format.

1. Dr Moezzi also argued that the signature on the assignment deed comprises an electronic copy thereof that was affixed to the assignment deed without his knowledge or consent[30]:

"The assignment deed contains an electronic signature matching my digital signature and a handwritten name and date beneath it, which I did not write or sign. The handwriting is not my own. The combination of electronic and handwritten elements is inconsistent and illogical, especially given the claim that the deed was witnessed by Cristina Bertani. There is no record of any meeting or correspondence where this assignment was discussed or agreed. > > Combination of an electronic signature and handwritten name and date, which is not done by me, is completely against the witnessing process where signature and handwriting must be performed in the presence of a witness at the same time so the witnessing become valid. There is no reason or possibility that signature is electronically transferred to the document in the presence of a witness and handwriting takes place at the same time. The fact that the witnessing process itself is completely invalid supports the fabricated nature of the assignment deed subject to this application here. > > Hereby, I also ATTACH A VIDEO (file is uploaded and titled: electronic signature matching the signature on assignment deed-video to show) as the analysis of electronic signature overlay to show the exact match of my electronic signature which is extracted in this video from one of my invoices that Mr Bertani had access to and used to show that the signature on the assignment deed is a 100% match with my electronic signature. I attach two invoices pre-dating the date of the assignment deed for your reference for separate procurement-related matters (See Exhibit E1 and E2)." (emphasis in original)

9. The video concerned confirms that the signature on the assignment document is identical to that of Exhibits E1 and E2, although a simple visual comparison of the signatures also confirms this to be the case. Again, these facts lend plausibility to Dr Moezzi's contention that he did not sign the assignment document. If Dr Moezzi had electronically signed the assignment document, then it would seem likely that he would have similarly typed or written his name and date himself.
10. Despite all the above, Mr Bertani has filed no evidence or submissions at all concerning these matters. There is no apparent reason why Mr Bertani would be unable to provide evidence contradicting Dr Moezzi's views on any or all of these issues. For example, it would seem a simple matter for Mr Bertani to obtain evidence from Mrs Bertani confirming her witnessing of the assignment deed, but no such evidence has been provided.
    1. Keeping in mind the considerations outlined in Briginshaw, taking into account:
       • Dr Moezzi's evidence and submissions to the effect that he did not sign the assignment deed;
       • the absence of any contemporaneous documents or records sent to or by Dr Moezzi concerning the assignment deed;
       • the apparent irregularities observed above in the assignment deed which lend plausibility to Dr Moezzi's contentions;
       • the fact that Mr Bertani was rather evasive in his responses to Dr Moezzi in June 2022 concerning the assignment document[31]; and
       • the fact that Mr Bertani has filed no evidence or submissions concerning these matters,

on balance I consider that Dr Moezzi did not in fact sign the assignment deed. It follows that the assignment deed is not effective in transferring Dr Moezzi's rights to the patent, and that the Register should be rectified to reflect Dr Moezzi as a patentee.

1. I note that Dr Moezzi has made allegations of fraud concerning the assignment deed[32]. To be clear I am not making any determinations concerning fraud, nor is it necessary for me to do so. All I need do for the purposes of the request is determine whether the assignment deed is effective for the purposes of the Act. Having determined that the assignment deed is ineffective, I leave it up to other, more appropriate authorities, to determine whether the ineffectiveness of the assignment deed was in any way due to fraud.

1. The s191A(2) request is successful. I am satisfied that the Requestor has established that Dr Moezzi is entitled to the patent along with Mr Bertani and declare that to be so for the purposes of s191A(2). Consequently, the Commissioner will rectify the Register pursuant to s191A(3) to correctly reflect both Mr Bertani and Dr Moezzi as patentees.

1. Costs usually follow the event. I see no reason to do otherwise here. I award costs against the Patentee, Mr Romolo Lorenzo Bertani, according to Schedule 8 of the Patent Regulations 1991.

[1] Comments filed by Mr Bertani's legal representatives on 17 November 2025 were concerned only with some matters raised by Dr Moezzi against the same, and do not represent or provide any response by Mr Bertani to Dr Moezzi's request.

[2] Patent page 1, line 4 to page 2 line 4.

[7] Patent page 2, line 5 to page 8a, line 29.

[8] Patent page 9, line 5 to page 11, line 25.

[9] Patent page 12, line 1 to page 34, line 26.

[12] Victoria University of Technology v Wilson [2004] VSC 33; 60 IPR 392 at [104]. References to footnotes removed.

[15] Submissions at C[5], E[1], F[5], F[6] and G[3]; statement1 at [4] and statement2 at sections 4, 7 to 9, 11, 13 and 14. Dr Moezzi's denials regarding employment are also apparent in Exhibits F4 and F7. Statement1 at section 5 indicates that Dr Moezzi and Mr Bertani were in a "business relationship".

[17] Submissions at E[5]; Statement2 at sections 4, 5 and 7 Exhibit F4; Exhibit F11; Exhibit I1

[18] Exhibit F4 at sections A and B and Exhibit F7, page 2.

[19] Submissions at C[5], C[6], D[2], E[3], G[2], H[2]; statement1 at [2]; statement2 at [3]; Exhibit F4 at section A; Exhibit F7 and Exhibit F9.

[20] Submissions at C[6]a), E[3] and G[3]; statement1 at [2]; statement2 at section 3and Exhibit F4 at section A.

[21] Submissions at C[6]b); statement1 at [2]; Exhibit F3; Exhibit F7 and Exhibit F9.

[22] Submissions at E[1] to [6] and H[3]; statement2 at sections 4 and 7; Exhibit A and Exhibit F3.

[25] See also Exhibit F7, page 1, where Dr Moezzi indicates that he discovered the statement of entitlement for the patent "recently" with recent being with respect to 5 March 2025.

[26] At section 7. See also the submissions at E[5].

[27] See Exhibit G2; statement2 at section 5; Exhibit F4 at section B and Exhibit F5

[32] For example, at statement1 section 6.