Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] FCA 1018 Citation: Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] FCA 1018
Parties: BRITAX CHILDCARE PTY LTD (ACN 006 773 600) v INFA-SECURE PTY LTD (ACN 092 222 994)
File number: VID 109 of 2009
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Determined on the papers: 17 September 2012
Date of last submissions: 7 September 2012
Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – infringement – Markman hearing – whether assessor should be appointed pursuant to s 217 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether proceeding should be referred to a referee pursuant to s 54A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Cases cited: Genetics Institute Inc v Kirin-Amgen Inc (1999) 92 FCR 106 F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v New England Biolabs Inc [1999] FCA 1424 Genetics Institute Inc v Kirin-Amgen Inc (No 2) (1997) 78 FCR 368 Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc 517 US 370 (1996) Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 558
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 31
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B J Hess SC with Dr L J Duncan
Solicitor for the Applicant: Norman Waterhouse Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms J Baird SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Chrysiliou Lawyers
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate