Pilkin v Sony Australia Limited [2018] FCA 1018

Pilkin v Sony Australia Limited [2018] FCA 1018

Security for costs should be ordered against the applicant, who is resident outside the jurisdiction and has no assets within it, there being neither evidence of enforceability of Australian cost orders in Russia nor countervailing circumstances justifying refusal. The sum ordered reflects a discount for pre-existing work by respondents elsewhere. The interlocutory strike-out application by the applicant is dismissed with costs.

Parties
First Applicant: Vitaly Evgenievich Pilkin; Second Applicant: Vladimir Vitalievich Miroshnichenko; First Respondent: Sony Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC; Third Respondent: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Sony Interactive Entertainment Network Europe Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Sony Interactive Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs; Case Management Orders
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; applicant's strike-out application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Patents, Security for Costs, Service Outside Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Applications
Intellectual Property Patents Security for Costs Service Outside Jurisdiction Interlocutory Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vitaly Evgenievich Pilkin

First Applicant

Vladimir Vitalievich Miroshnichenko

Second Applicant

Sony Australia Limited

First Respondent

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

Second Respondent

Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd

Third Respondent

Sony Interactive Entertainment Network Europe Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Sony Interactive Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs; Case Management Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order security for costs against a foreign applicant in patent litigation
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory application to strike out should be upheld
  3. 3 Procedural steps following the death of a co-applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should be ordered against the applicant, who is resident outside the jurisdiction and has no assets within it, there being neither evidence of enforceability of Australian cost orders in Russia nor countervailing circumstances justifying refusal. The sum ordered reflects a discount for pre-existing work by respondents elsewhere. The interlocutory strike-out application by the applicant is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; applicant's strike-out application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Unless otherwise ordered, second applicant’s claim dismissed if not regularised by 26 October 2018.
  • First applicant to pay $45,000 into Court as security for costs by 27 September 2018, failing which the proceeding shall be stayed until further order.