Martin Engineering Company & Anor v Matflo Engineering Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 579

Martin Engineering Company & Anor v Matflo Engineering Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 579

The applicants established a serious question to be tried regarding alleged infringement, and modifications by the respondents did not prevent all essential integers of the patented claim from being taken; balance of convenience favored the applicants, as damages may not be an adequate remedy, and there was no undue delay.

Parties
First Applicant: Martin Engineering Company; Second Applicant: Engineering Services and Supplies Pty Limited; First Respondent: Matflo Engineering Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Nicaro Holdings Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Richard Couper
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Proceedings)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted against Nicaro Holdings Pty Limited
Legal Topics
Patents, Infringement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Novelty, Obviousness, Discretion to Admit Evidence
Intellectual Property Patents Infringement Interlocutory Injunctions Novelty Obviousness Discretion to Admit 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Engineering Company

First Applicant

Engineering Services and Supplies Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Matflo Engineering Pty Limited

First Respondent

Nicaro Holdings Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Richard Couper

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interlocutory injunction to restrain infringement of a patent
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' patent is novel and non-obvious
  3. 3 Whether modifications to the respondents' apparatus are sufficient to avoid infringement

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants established a serious question to be tried regarding alleged infringement, and modifications by the respondents did not prevent all essential integers of the patented claim from being taken; balance of convenience favored the applicants, as damages may not be an adequate remedy, and there was no undue delay.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted against Nicaro Holdings Pty Limited

Orders

  • An interlocutory injunction restraining Nicaro Holdings Pty Limited from manufacturing or selling the modified equipment referred to in the evidence, with orders to be settled on short minutes.