Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents (No 2) [2020] FCA 974 File number: NSD 1343 of 2018
Judge: BURLEY J
Date of judgment: 10 July 2020
Catchwords: COSTS – usual rule that costs follow the event – whether Commissioner should pay costs of hearing before delegate – whether discretion should be exercised to apportion costs – where appellant filed considerable volume of duplicative or unnecessary expert evidence – costs of expert evidence apportioned
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 19(1), 18(1A)(a), 101E(2), 101F(1), 160(1), 210(1)(d))
Cases cited: Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177; 238 FCR 27 D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics [2015] HCA 35; 258 CLR 334 Davies v Lazer Safe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 118 Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 7 Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2019] FCA 1956; 148 IPR 164 Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150; 227 FCR 378
Date of last submissions: 19 June 2020
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Sub-area: Patents and associated Statutes
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 13
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr D. Shavin QC with Mr W. Wu
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