Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 104 File number: NSD 1032 of 2015
Judge: BURLEY J
Date of judgment: 16 February 2018
Catchwords: COSTS – form of declaratory relief – whether general award or issues based approach is best method – award of costs according to success on separate grounds – appropriate apportionment
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2, ss 18,29 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), ss145 and 148
Cases cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1991) 175 CLR 564 Crane v Gething [2000] FCA 45; (2000) 169 ALR 727 Hislop v Paltar Petroleum Limited (No 4) [2017] FCA 1632 Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 7 Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27; (2016) 247 FCR 61 Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1403
Date of hearing: 20 December 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Sub-area: Patents and associated Statutes
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D K Catterns QC with Ms C L Cochrane and Mr D B Larish
Solicitor for the Applicants: Allens
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr C Dimitriadis SC with Mr C Burgess
Solicitor for the Respondents: Minter Ellison
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