Equivalent Cooling Tower Co Pty Ltd v Pritchard Cooling Tower Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1648

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PATENT – alleged infringement – interlocutory injunction – whether there is a serious question to be tried – relevance of the petty patent system to the balance of convenience Peter Pan Electrics Proprietary Limited v Newton Grace Proprietary Limited (1985) AIPC 90 232 Appl

EQUIVALENT COOLING TOWER COMPANY PTY LTD V PRITCHARD COOLING TOWER SERVICES PTY LTD AND PRITCHARD PACIFIC PTY LTD AND GREGORY WILLIAM WILCOX

QG 172/98

KIEFEL J BRISBANE 16 DECEMBER 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 172 of 1998

BETWEEN: EQUIVALENT COOLING TOWER COMPANY PTY LTD

Applicant

AND: PRITCHARD COOLING TOWER SERVICES PTY LTD

First Respondent

PRITCHARD PACIFIC PTY LTD

Second Respondent

GREGORY WILLIAM WILCOX

Third Respondent

JUDGE: KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 DECEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Order of 16 December 1998 in terms of the original draft: Upon the Respondents undertaking pending the trial of this action to: 1. Keep a full and accurate record of all of: a. The alleged infrining fill grid panels, identified in the Affidavit of Paul Wayne Evans dated 7 December 1998 (the "fill grid"), supplied to CS Energy under contract SB305, and b. The financial accounts and transactions of the Respondents relating to the said Contract SB305. 2. The Respondents will not, nor cause any other entities to tender for theuse of, or otherwise contract to use the fill grid without first giving the Applicant as much written notice as is reasonably practical of any intention by anyy of the Respondents to tender for or use the said fill grid The Respondents shall specify in such notice full details of the proposed bid or contract. The Court orders that: 3. The application for interlocutory injunctions be dismissed. 4. The applicant pay the Respondents' costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed. The Court further orders that: 5. the applicant supply the Respondent with a list of the corporations or entities to whom letters advising of the infringment had been sent without the applicant disclosing any contact within that corporation or other entity. 6/ The applicant provide the Respondent within 48 hours of sending any further such letter a copy of the letter. 7. The costs incidental to the proceeding be reserved. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.