Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 377

Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 377

Claims 23 and 27 remained readable and enforceable notwithstanding their dependence on claims found invalid, because the revoked claims could still be referred to in the specification and no separate lack of clarity case had been advanced; therefore Damorgold was entitled to relief for the established infringement without first amending the Patent. Since Damorgold obtained the primary relief sought and JAI failed in its ultimate endeavour to avoid a finding of infringement, JAI was ordered to pay the first applicant's costs to date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceeding and Cross Claim for Revocation / Reasons for Orders After Liability Judgment, Including Injunctive Relief, Revocation, Delivery Up, Election Information, Stay and Costs
Outcome
Orders made granting injunctive relief, delivery up, information for election of monetary relief, partial revocation of the Patent, a stay of the revocation order, costs for the first applicant, adjournment of directions, and certification that validity of claims 23 and 27 was unsuccessfully questioned.
Legal Topics
['patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'dependent Patent Claims' 'revocation of Patent Claims' 'patent Amendment' 'injunctive Relief' 'delivery Up' 'election Between Damages and Account of Profits' 'costs Following the Event' 'stay of Revocation Order']

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 Proceeding and Cross Claim for Revocation / Reasons for Orders After Liability Judgment, Including Injunctive Relief, Revocation, Delivery Up, Election Information, Stay and Costs

  1. 1 ['Whether orders for injunctive relief, delivery up and information to enable an election as to monetary relief could be made before any amendment application to the Patent.' 'Whether claims 23 and 27 could be enforced despite being dependent on claims found invalid and revoked.' 'Whether a declaration should be made in addition to revocation of invalid claims.' 'Whether the revocation order should be stayed.' 'What costs order should be made after Damorgold succeeded on infringement but JAI succeeded in invalidating a number of claims.']

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 23 and 27 remained readable and enforceable notwithstanding their dependence on claims found invalid, because the revoked claims could still be referred to in the specification and no separate lack of clarity case had been advanced; therefore Damorgold was entitled to relief for the established infringement without first amending the Patent. Since Damorgold obtained the primary relief sought and JAI failed in its ultimate endeavour to avoid a finding of infringement, JAI was ordered to pay the first applicant's costs to date.

Court Disposition

Orders made granting injunctive relief, delivery up, information for election of monetary relief, partial revocation of the Patent, a stay of the revocation order, costs for the first applicant, adjournment of directions, and certification that validity of claims 23 and 27 was unsuccessfully questioned.

Orders

  • ['During the term of Australian Patent No. 760547, JAI Products Pty Ltd is restrained from infringing claims 23 and 27, including by importing, making, using, selling, supplying, promoting, advertising or offering JAI spring assists for use in the claimed mechanism, giving or publishing instructions for such use,...