Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] FCA 515

Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] FCA 515

Because Solcenic GM20 LD was the named product supplied to Broadmeadow and no confusion or uncertainty was shown, neither party's proposed additional product wording was required. Although Quaker ultimately succeeded on infringement and Fuchs' validity challenge failed, Quaker's infringement case succeeded only in relation to the Broadmeadow Mine and not other mine sites, warranting a discounted global costs order requiring Fuchs to pay 90% of Quaker's costs of the Application and Cross-Claim, save for costs orders already made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure in a Patents Proceeding / Final Orders Determined on the Papers to Give Effect to an Earlier Judgment, Including Costs
Outcome
Final orders made; infringement declared; injunction granted during the term of the First Patent; Cross-Claim dismissed; Fuchs ordered to pay 90% of Quaker's costs; inquiry as to damages or profits ordered; specified orders temporarily stayed.
Legal Topics
['form of Final Orders' 'patent Infringement' 'injunction' 'costs' 'stay of Orders' 'validity Cross Claim' 'inquiry as to Damages or Profits']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['form of Final Orders' 'patent Infringement' 'injunction' 'costs' 'stay of Orders' 'validity Cross Claim' 'inquiry as to Damages or Profits']

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 in a Patents Proceeding / Final Orders Determined on the Papers to Give Effect to an Earlier Judgment, Including Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the final orders should include a definition of Solcenic GM20 LD or additional words identifying the product.' "What costs order should be made after Quaker succeeded on infringement and Fuchs' validity challenge failed, but Quaker's infringement case succeeded only in relation to the Broadmeadow Mine." 'Whether a temporary stay of certain final orders should be included.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Solcenic GM20 LD was the named product supplied to Broadmeadow and no confusion or uncertainty was shown, neither party's proposed additional product wording was required. Although Quaker ultimately succeeded on infringement and Fuchs' validity challenge failed, Quaker's infringement case succeeded only in relation to the Broadmeadow Mine and not other mine sites, warranting a discounted global costs order requiring Fuchs to pay 90% of Quaker's costs of the Application and Cross-Claim, save for costs orders already made.

Court Disposition

Final orders made; infringement declared; injunction granted during the term of the First Patent; Cross-Claim dismissed; Fuchs ordered to pay 90% of Quaker's costs; inquiry as to damages or profits ordered; specified orders temporarily stayed.

Orders

  • ['The Court declared that by supplying Solcenic GM20 LD to the Broadmeadow underground coal mine since July 2016, Fuchs infringed under section 117 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of Australian Standard Patent 2012304245 and claims 1, 2 and 3 of Australian Innovation Patent...