Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 7) [2016] FCA 991 File number: WAD 132 of 2007
Judge: BARKER J
Date of judgment: 19 August 2016
Catchwords: DAMAGES – innovation patents – where patent infringement proceedings dismissed – where cross-claim of patent invalidity dismissed – where threats to bring infringement proceedings declared unjustifiable threats under s 128 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether first respondent a "person aggrieved" for purposes of s 128 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether first respondent held a relevant interest in the tool the subject of the threats at material times – whether valid assignment of interest in tool – whether tool of merchantable quality at material times – whether first respondent had a business in the tool at material times – whether threat letters caused first respondent to suffer loss and damage – quantum of loss and damage PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where finding of no assignment in related proceeding – where risk of inconsistent findings – finding of assignment made on the evidence in this proceeding
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 79, 80, 135, 191 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 51A, 51A(2)(a) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 128, 128(1), 128(1)(a), 128(1)(c)
Cases cited: Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited v Border Printing Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1989] FCA 194 Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd (ACN 009 283 416 and Others v Coretell Pty Ltd (ACN 119 188 493) and Another (2010) 88 IPR 270; [2010] FCA 1169 Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd and Others v Coretell Pty Ltd and Another (2011) 93 IPR 188; [2011] FCAFC 121 Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1451 Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 5) [2016] FCA 444 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd (2011) 192 FCR 445; [2011] FCAFC 55 Fair Work Ombudsman v Skilled Offshore (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1509 Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (2004) 136 FCR 566; [2004] FCAFC 180 JMVB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Camoflag Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 68; [2005] FCA 1474 John Summers & Sons Ltd v Cold Metal Process Co (1948) 65 RPC 75 Johnson v Edge (1892) 2 Ch 1 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Tyco Electronics Pty Ltd (2002) 56 IPR 248; [2002] FCAFC 315 National Telecoms Group Ltd v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] NSWSC 455
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