Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2013] FCAFC 138

Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2013] FCAFC 138

Leave to appeal was refused because Samsung did not demonstrate any error of principle in the primary judge's discretionary, case-management decision refusing late reliance on the two witness statements. The primary judge addressed the relevance and probative value of the evidence, the pleadings, the substantial unexplained delay, prejudice to Apple, potential disruption to a tightly ordered hearing, and s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The proposed evidence, particularly that of Mr Korea, would have expanded the factual issues and introduced matters beyond the Australian litigation, while no satisfactory explanation was given for the late filing. The application was an attempt to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Refusing Permission to Rely Upon Further Evidence / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'late Evidence' 'discretionary Case Management Decision' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'misuse of Market Power' 'frand Licensing Negotiations']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'competition and Consumer Law' 'patent Litigation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'late Evidence' 'discretionary Case Management Decision' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'misuse of Market Power' 'frand Licensing Negotiations']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Refusing Permission to Rely Upon Further Evidence / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the primary judge's interlocutory refusal to permit Samsung to rely on two further witness statements served nearly 12 months after the directed time." 'Whether the primary judge made an error of principle of the kind identified in House v R in assessing the relevance, probative value, delay, prejudice and pleadings concerning the proposed evidence.' 'Whether the proposed evidence should remain excluded in light of case-management considerations and s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Samsung did not demonstrate any error of principle in the primary judge's discretionary, case-management decision refusing late reliance on the two witness statements. The primary judge addressed the relevance and probative value of the evidence, the pleadings, the substantial unexplained delay, prejudice to Apple, potential disruption to a tightly ordered hearing, and s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The proposed evidence, particularly that of Mr Korea, would have expanded the factual issues and introduced matters beyond the Australian litigation, while no satisfactory explanation was given for the late filing. The application was an attempt to...

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Limited on 11 November 2013 is dismissed.' 'Samsung Electronics Co. Limited is to pay the costs of the said application.']