Bradken Resources Pty Ltd v Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1257

Bradken Resources Pty Ltd v Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1257

Paragraph 15 of Lynx’s Defence (regarding the defence under s 57 and s 129(b) of the Patents Act) is permitted to stand as it accords with the statutory language and properly asserts the potential defence to unjustified threats. Paragraph 16, asserting that Bradken’s conduct in appealing and opposing amendments delays Lynx’s patent and therefore disentitles Bradken to relief, is struck out as misconceived. Paragraph 17 (concerning alleged misconduct by Bradken) may be relevant to damages and is permitted to stand at this stage, but alleged impropriety is not a bar to relief for unjustified threats unless directly related to the threats themselves.

Parties
Applicant / Cross Respondent: Bradken Resources Pty Limited; Respondent / Cross Appellant: Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Dispute (patents) and Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Decision on Strike Out Motion and Procedural Management
Outcome
Strike out application partly allowed
Legal Topics
Patents, Unjustified Threats, Court's Discretion to Grant Relief, Strike Out Pleadings, Transfer of Proceedings
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patents Unjustified Threats Court's Discretion to Grant Relief Strike Out Pleadings Transfer of Proceedings

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradken Resources Pty Limited

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Limited

Respondent / Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Dispute (patents) and Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Decision on Strike Out Motion and Procedural Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has a discretion to decline to grant relief for unjustified threats under s 129 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
  2. 2 Relevance of alleged breach of contract, confidence, copyright infringement, or contraventions of Trade Practices Act to the exercise of discretion under s 129
  3. 3 Availability of defence under ss 57 and 129(b), and whether conduct must infringe claims as published at the time of threats and of conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 15 of Lynx’s Defence (regarding the defence under s 57 and s 129(b) of the Patents Act) is permitted to stand as it accords with the statutory language and properly asserts the potential defence to unjustified threats. Paragraph 16, asserting that Bradken’s conduct in appealing and opposing amendments delays Lynx’s patent and therefore disentitles Bradken to relief, is struck out as misconceived. Paragraph 17 (concerning alleged misconduct by Bradken) may be relevant to damages and is permitted to stand at this stage, but alleged impropriety is not a bar to relief for unjustified threats unless directly related to the threats themselves.

Court Disposition

Strike out application partly allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 16 of the Defence struck out
  • Paragraphs 15 and 17 permitted to stand, subject to further amendment