Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2017] FCA 1013 File number: NSD 558 of 2014
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 30 August 2017
Catchwords: PATENTS – costs and other orders
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 19 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 22.03
Cases cited: Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 699 Nichia Corporation v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 864
Date of last submissions: 28 August 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Sub-area: Patents and associated Statutes
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 19
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Catterns QC with Ms C L Cochrane and Mr D B Larish
Solicitor for the Applicant: Allens
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms K J Howard SC with Mr H P T Bevan
Solicitor for the Respondent: King & Wood Mallesons
ORDERS NSD 558 of 2014
BETWEEN: NICHIA CORPORATION Applicant
AND: ARROW ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 065 151 626 Respondent
AND BETWEEN: ARROW ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 065 151 626 Cross-claimant
AND: NICHIA CORPORATION Cross-Respondent
JUDGE: YATES J DATE OF ORDER: 30 AUGUST 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The originating application be dismissed. 2. The notice of cross-claim be dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the originating application, other than the respondent's costs of disputing the truth of the facts identified in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the applicant's notice to admit dated 17 October 2014 (the notice to admit). 4. Pursuant to rule 22.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the respondent pay the applicant's costs of proving the truth of the facts identified in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the notice to admit. 5. Subject to Order 2 made on 10 August 2015, the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the notice of cross-claim. THE COURT CERTIFIES THAT: 6. Pursuant to s 19 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), the validity of claim 1 and claim 3 of Patent No. 720234 was questioned in this proceeding. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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