Australia's Full Federal Court Finds Hytera Copied a Substantial Part of Motorola's Radio Code
Photo: Abdul Kayum / Pexels
The global dispute between Motorola Solutions and Hytera Communications over digital mobile radio (DMR) software has produced another loss for Hytera, this time in Australia. In Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc (No 2) [2026] FCAFC 122, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Beach, O'Bryan and Rofe JJ) dismissed Hytera's remaining appeal grounds and allowed Motorola's cross-appeal on the copyright claim. The orders are dated 7 September 2026, but the public reasons only drew wider attention this week, after commentary on 27 and 28 October.
How the case got here
The story starts in February 2008, when Hytera recruited a senior Motorola engineer who then brought about a dozen more Motorola engineers across. The published reasons record that Hytera reached the market with its DMR radios in March 2010, at least 15 months earlier than it otherwise could have. The trial judge, in [2022] FCA 1585, called the conduct a substantial industrial theft but did not find copyright infringement on every work. In a first appeal in 2024, the Full Court said the wrong test had been used to decide whether Hytera's code took a "substantial part" of Motorola's works, and sent that question back for a rehearing before the same bench.
What the court decided now
Hytera lost on its appeal grounds 2 to 5, and Motorola won on grounds 2, 3 and 4 of its cross-appeal. The practical result is that Motorola succeeds on its copyright case for the source code works in issue. Hytera must pay Motorola's costs of the copyright part of the appeal, while each side bears its own costs of the patent part. The parties were told to agree the form of the final orders.
Only part of the judgment is public. Most of the detailed code comparison is under confidentiality orders, so the published reasons cover the background and the court's conclusions rather than the line by line analysis.
Intent as a supporting factor
One point of wider interest is how the court used the copier's intent, often called animus furandi. The court accepted that an intention to save the time and labour of writing code independently is relevant to whether a substantial part was taken, and said it reinforced the conclusion it had already reached. It was not treated as the deciding factor on its own. For software owners, this means evidence of how code was taken, and why, can still support a case that rests mainly on comparing the code itself.
Why it matters, including for Indonesia
The substantial part question matters most when copied code has been rewritten, reorganised or partly deleted. This ruling suggests that Australian courts will look at the importance of what was taken, not just the share of lines that match.
Indonesia's Copyright Law (Law No. 28 of 2014) protects computer programs as works, and copyright claims can be brought before the Commercial Court. We are not aware of an Indonesian decision that has examined substantial copying of firmware source code in this much detail. For companies in Indonesia that hire engineers from competitors, the practical lessons are the same: control what new staff bring with them, document independent development, and secure evidence early if code may have been taken.
Sources
Do you or your clients need trademark, patent, annuity or industrial design work in Indonesia? We handle filings, prosecution and renewals, with updates in English. Email us for a quote.
Contact UsIf you enjoyed this article on our portal, you can buy me a coffee via the PayPal link below.
PayPal
