Boyle v Neofoil Pty Ltd ACN 007 155 973 [2004] FCA 61

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Boyle v Neofoil Pty Ltd ACN 007 155 973 [2004] FCA 61 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – where alleged infringement – where motion to strike out application – where conflicting evidence – whether reasonable cause of action disclosed – whether should proceed to trial. Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 117, 117(2)(a), 117(2)(c) Federal Court Rules O 20 r 2 Fancourt & Anor v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 cited Australian Building Industries Pty Ltd v Stramit Corporation Ltd [1997] FCA 1318 cited Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 1 WLR 1238 cited Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 followed Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 cited Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 205 cited Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd & Anor (1994) 30 IPR 479 cited Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1 cited PETER HAMILTON BOYLE v NEOFOIL PTY LTD ACN 007 155 973 AND WILLIAM JOHN HULL AND GAIL MAREE BYWATER AND JENNIFER LEE FIDLER AND COLIN BAXTER Q 54 OF 2003 DOWSETT J 6 FEBRUARY 2004 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 54 OF 2003

BETWEEN: PETER HAMILTON BOYLE

APPLICANT

AND: NEOFOIL PTY LTD ACN 007 155 973

FIRST RESPONDENT

WILLIAM JOHN HULL

SECOND RESPONDENT

GAIL MAREE BYWATER

THIRD RESPONDENT

JENNIFER LEE FIDLER

FOURTH RESPONDENT

COLIN BAXTER

FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion, notice of which was filed on 21 July 2003, be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.