Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DSI Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Garford Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 268 Citation: DSI Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Garford Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 268
Parties: DSI AUSTRALIA (HOLDINGS) PTY LTD (ACN 115 848 265) and DYWIDAG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 093 424 349) v GARFORD PTY LTD (ACN 009 119 180)
File number: NSD 767 of 2010
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 28 March 2013
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 11 March 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 9
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr C Dimitriadis with Mr C Burgess
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Goddard SC with Mr H Bevan
Solicitor for the Applicants: Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent: Teller & Associates
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 767 of 2010
BETWEEN: DSI AUSTRALIA (HOLDINGS) PTY LTD (ACN 115 848 265)
First Applicant
DYWIDAG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 093 424 349)
Second Applicant
AND: GARFORD PTY LTD (ACN 009 119 180)
Respondent
JUDGE: YATES J DATE OF ORDER: 28 MARCH 2013 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1. The threats made by the respondent to the first applicant of infringement of Australian Patent No. 770594 (the patent) in the letter of Teller & Associates dated 16 June 2010 were unjustifiable. 2. Claims 1 and 5 to 14 (inclusive) of the patent are, and always have been, invalid.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 3. The respondent, whether by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise howsoever, be restrained from making any further threats of infringement of the patent in relation to the DSI apparatus identified in the reasons for judgment of the Court delivered on 28 February 2013. 4. The applicants' application for unjustifiable threats of patent infringement otherwise be dismissed. 5. Subject to order 6, claims 1 and 5 to 14 (inclusive) of the patent be revoked. 6. Upon the undertakings referred to in paragraph 9 below, order 5 be stayed: (a) initially, for a period of 21 days from the date on which these orders are pronounced; and (b) if an appeal is lodged within that period, until the determination of that appeal, or further order. 7. The respondent's cross-claim for infringement of the patent be dismissed. 8. The respondent pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding.
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