Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v Tyco Electronics Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1624

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v Tyco Electronics Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1624

The Court made the notification order proposed by 3M because it covered whether or not an appeal was lodged and Tyco identified no prejudice from an order that effectively stayed notification if an appeal were filed. Although Tyco had served some evidence it ultimately did not rely on and some duplication existed, its conduct fell well short of justifying indemnity costs, an indemnity order would burden the taxing officer, and the efficient conduct of the trial and the principle that costs follow the event warranted ordering 3M to pay Tyco's costs of the application and cross-claim, subject to any earlier costs orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Patent Proceedings Involving an Application and a Cross Claim for Revocation of Letters Patent No. 624486 / Form of Orders and Costs Following Reasons for Judgment Delivered on 26 September 2001
Outcome
Letters patent no. 624486 revoked; application dismissed; 3M ordered to pay Tyco's costs of the application and cross-claim subject to any costs orders already made.
Legal Topics
['revocation of Letters Patent' 'dismissal of Application' 'stay Pending Appeal Period' 'notification to Commissioner of Patents' 'costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'abandoned or Inadmissible Evidence']
['patents' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['revocation of Letters Patent' 'dismissal of Application' 'stay Pending Appeal Period' 'notification to Commissioner of Patents' 'costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'abandoned or Inadmissible 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 Proceedings Involving an Application and a Cross Claim for Revocation of Letters Patent No. 624486 / Form of Orders and Costs Following Reasons for Judgment Delivered on 26 September 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders should include a provision that the Registrar notify the Commissioner of Patents of revocation only if no appeal is lodged before expiry of the appeal period.' "Whether 3M should pay Tyco's costs of the application and cross-claim." "Whether Tyco's conduct in serving or relying on evidence ultimately not read, rejected or abandoned justified indemnity costs or a reduction of Tyco's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made the notification order proposed by 3M because it covered whether or not an appeal was lodged and Tyco identified no prejudice from an order that effectively stayed notification if an appeal were filed. Although Tyco had served some evidence it ultimately did not rely on and some duplication existed, its conduct fell well short of justifying indemnity costs, an indemnity order would burden the taxing officer, and the efficient conduct of the trial and the principle that costs follow the event warranted ordering 3M to pay Tyco's costs of the application and cross-claim, subject to any earlier costs orders.

Court Disposition

Letters patent no. 624486 revoked; application dismissed; 3M ordered to pay Tyco's costs of the application and cross-claim subject to any costs orders already made.

Orders

  • ['Letters patent no. 624486 be revoked.' 'The application be dismissed.' 'If no appeal is lodged by the applicant/cross-respondent on or before the expiration of the appeal period, the Registrar must, after the expiration of the appeal period, notify the Commissioner of Patents of the making of order 1.' "Subject to...