Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 37

Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 37

Applicants were entitled to costs thrown away by amendments leading to admissions of reputation and patent infringement, but circumstances did not warrant awarding lump sum costs or ordering immediate enforcement of costs orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial Costs Determination)
Outcome
Applicants awarded costs as specified but no lump sum or forthwith payment orders granted.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'patent Infringement' 'interlocutory Procedure']
['intellectual Property'] ['costs' 'patent Infringement' 'interlocutory Procedure']

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

Costs Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial Costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs thrown away by reason of amendments should be awarded' 'Whether lump sum costs orders should be made' 'Whether costs should be payable forthwith']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants were entitled to costs thrown away by amendments leading to admissions of reputation and patent infringement, but circumstances did not warrant awarding lump sum costs or ordering immediate enforcement of costs orders.

Court Disposition

Applicants awarded costs as specified but no lump sum or forthwith payment orders granted.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to their claims of infringement of the 133 and 135 patents incurred up until 19 November 2015 on a party-party basis." "The respondents pay the applicants' costs thrown away by reason of the amendment on 17 October 2014 of their defence to admit the...