Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 596

Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 596

The applicants were entitled to await and assess the respondents' evidence in answer on damages before electing between damages and an account of profits. Requiring an immediate election was not justified, because the relevant question was whether the election would be unreasonably delayed to the prejudice of the respondents, and the applicants' proposed course was a permissible cautious approach to making an informed election.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application in Patent Infringement Proceeding / Respondents' Oral Application for an Order Requiring the Applicants to Elect Between Damages or an Account of Profits
Outcome
Respondents' oral application refused; applicants to elect between damages and an account of profits within 14 days of receipt of evidence served pursuant to the orders.
Legal Topics
['election Between Damages and Account of Profits' 'patent Infringement Remedies' 'case Management' 'costs and Delay']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['election Between Damages and Account of Profits' 'patent Infringement Remedies' 'case Management' 'costs and Delay']

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

Practice and Procedure Application in Patent Infringement Proceeding / Respondents' Oral Application for an Order Requiring the Applicants to Elect Between Damages or an Account of Profits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be required to make an election between damages or an account of profits on or before 27 May 2022.' "Whether postponing the election until after service of the respondents' evidence on damages would be an unreasonable delay causing prejudice to the respondents."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were entitled to await and assess the respondents' evidence in answer on damages before electing between damages and an account of profits. Requiring an immediate election was not justified, because the relevant question was whether the election would be unreasonably delayed to the prejudice of the respondents, and the applicants' proposed course was a permissible cautious approach to making an informed election.

Court Disposition

Respondents' oral application refused; applicants to elect between damages and an account of profits within 14 days of receipt of evidence served pursuant to the orders.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' oral application for an order that on or before 27 May 2022, the applicants make and notify the respondents and the Court of their election between damages or an account of profits, be refused." "The respondents pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the respondents' oral application, to...