Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Zuru Ltd v Brand Developers Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 1023 File number: NSD 1702 of 2015
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 25 August 2017
Catchwords: PATENTS – infringement application in relation to Australian patent No 2015101248 – cross-claim for invalidity – interlocutory application for discovery
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Date of hearing: 23 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: 5
Counsel for the Applicants/Cross Respondents: Mr CA Moore SC
Solicitor for the Applicants/Cross Respondents: AJ Park IP Pty Limited
Counsel for the Respondent/Cross-Claimant: Mr N Murray with Ms F John
Solicitor for the Respondent/Cross-Claimant: Griffith Hack Lawyers
ORDERS NSD 1702 of 2015
BETWEEN: ZURU LTD First Applicant
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC Second Applicant
AND: BRAND DEVELOPERS AUST PTY LTD (ACN 115 139 565) Respondent
AND BETWEEN: BRAND DEVELOPERS AUST PTY LTD (ACN 115 139 565) Cross-Claimant
AND: ZURU LTD (and another named in the Schedule) First Cross-Respondent
JUDGE: ROBERTSON J DATE OF ORDER: 25 August 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Subject to the question of legal professional privilege, the applicants/cross-respondents give discovery and inspection, within 14 days, of the body of any email sent on or about 23 April 2015 to Anna Mowbray which attached the documents attached to the email from Josh Malone to Anna Mowbray at 6:30 PM, 23 April 2015. 2. The applicants/cross-respondents give discovery and inspection, within 14 days, of the Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct and No Unclean Hands in US Case No 6:16-CV-33 and of the documents that were directly relied on in support of it. 3. Subject to the question of legal professional privilege, the applicants/cross-respondents give discovery and inspection, within 14 days, of any contemporaneous documents informing the decision to file a subsequent petition to revive the non-provisional referred to at paragraph 47 of the affidavit of Mark Richard Kresloff dated 10 August 2017 and filed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as reproduced on page 54 of the affidavit of Katie Pearl Kavanaugh affirmed 15 August 2017. 4. Costs reserved. 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