Neurizon Pty Ltd (ACN 077 012 376) v LTH Consulting and Marketing Services Pty Ltd (ACN 061 363 139) [2003] FCA 337

Neurizon Pty Ltd (ACN 077 012 376) v LTH Consulting and Marketing Services Pty Ltd (ACN 061 363 139) [2003] FCA 337

The application to amend the defence was refused because it was brought very late, after the trial and after reasons had been published; the parties had conducted the proceedings on the basis that certain matters would be finally disposed of at that stage; the proposed matter was not clearly litigated and might require further evidence and reconsideration of substantial parts of the evidence; and the need to bring litigation to a close outweighed allowing the amendment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Patent Proceedings; Application to Amend Defence / After Trial and After Publication of Reasons Substantially Disposing of the Matters, With Infringement and Damages Issues Not Yet Finally Resolved
Outcome
Application to amend the defence refused.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Defence' 'late Amendment After Trial' 'patent Validity' 'non Compliance With Par 40(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (cth)']
['patents' 'civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Defence' 'late Amendment After Trial' 'patent Validity' 'non Compliance With Par 40(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (cth)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Patent Proceedings; Application to Amend Defence / After Trial and After Publication of Reasons Substantially Disposing of the Matters, With Infringement and Damages Issues Not Yet Finally Resolved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defence should be amended very late to permit reliance on alleged non-compliance with par 40(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the defence was refused because it was brought very late, after the trial and after reasons had been published; the parties had conducted the proceedings on the basis that certain matters would be finally disposed of at that stage; the proposed matter was not clearly litigated and might require further evidence and reconsideration of substantial parts of the evidence; and the need to bring litigation to a close outweighed allowing the amendment.

Court Disposition

Application to amend the defence refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to amend the defence filed on 28 September 2001 is refused.']