Stena Rederi Aktiebolag v Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1141

Stena Rederi Aktiebolag v Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1141

It is appropriate to apportion costs, given the applicant’s partial success. The respondents are ordered to pay 90% of the applicant’s costs, reflecting the overlap of evidence and submissions, but also recognising Stena’s failure on two infringement claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation Proceedings / Costs Determination After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs apportioned in favour of applicant (Stena Rederi Aktiebolag); respondents to pay 90% of applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'patent Infringement' 'revocation of Patent' 'apportionment of Costs']
['intellectual Property Law' 'litigation'] ['costs' 'patent Infringement' 'revocation of Patent' 'apportionment of Costs']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation Proceedings / Costs Determination After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should costs be apportioned between the parties given partial success on infringement claims and dismissal of the revocation cross-claim?' 'What quantum of apportionment is appropriate?']

Ratio Decidendi

It is appropriate to apportion costs, given the applicant’s partial success. The respondents are ordered to pay 90% of the applicant’s costs, reflecting the overlap of evidence and submissions, but also recognising Stena’s failure on two infringement claims.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned in favour of applicant (Stena Rederi Aktiebolag); respondents to pay 90% of applicant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The respondents pay 90% of the costs of the applicant in these proceedings.' "The parties arrange further directions in the matter after Austal's application for leave to appeal or, if leave is granted, Austal's appeal from the orders of 20 July 2007, is determined."]