Danisco A/S v Novozymes A/S [2010] FCA 995

Danisco A/S v Novozymes A/S [2010] FCA 995

The adjournment was refused because the hearing had commenced, further expert evidence and delay would be required, reconvening would be difficult, and costs would not necessarily compensate for the prejudice and court disruption. Novozymes could rely on admissions, tender material as admissions, and advance its inherency case on the evidence already prepared. Leave to amend the particulars of invalidity was granted because Novozymes believed its existing pleading extended to the inherency case and leave would make that case clear.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceeding With Cross Claim for Revocation / Interlocutory Application During Hearing for Adjournment to Adduce Further Evidence and Leave to Amend Particulars of Invalidity
Outcome
Adjournment refused; leave to amend particulars of invalidity granted.
Legal Topics
['patent Infringement' 'patent Revocation' 'lack of Novelty' 'inherent Anticipation' 'gillette Defence' 'adjournment' 'amendment of Particulars' 'expert Evidence']
['intellectual Property' 'patent Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['patent Infringement' 'patent Revocation' 'lack of Novelty' 'inherent Anticipation' 'gillette Defence' 'adjournment' 'amendment of Particulars' 'expert Evidence']

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 With Cross Claim for Revocation / Interlocutory Application During Hearing for Adjournment to Adduce Further Evidence and Leave to Amend Particulars of Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents/cross-claimants should be granted an adjournment to adduce further evidence, including experimental evidence, in support of their inherency case on lack of novelty.' 'Whether the respondents/cross-claimants should be granted leave to amend their particulars of invalidity to make the inherency case clear.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the hearing had commenced, further expert evidence and delay would be required, reconvening would be difficult, and costs would not necessarily compensate for the prejudice and court disruption. Novozymes could rely on admissions, tender material as admissions, and advance its inherency case on the evidence already prepared. Leave to amend the particulars of invalidity was granted because Novozymes believed its existing pleading extended to the inherency case and leave would make that case clear.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; leave to amend particulars of invalidity granted.

Orders

  • ["The respondents'/cross-claimants' application for an adjournment for leave to adduce further evidence be refused." "The respondents/cross-claimants be granted leave to file a third further amended particulars of invalidity in the form attached to the respondents'/cross-claimants' notice of motion dated 2 September...