Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1529

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v IGT (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1529

The Court refused to re-open the evidence because the relevant issue had been before the parties, had been addressed in the evidence, and the proposed additional evidence was said only to put the matter beyond doubt rather than to be absolutely necessary; reopening would add expense and time and undermine finality and the efficient conduct of the proceeding. However, because the Court accepted that its earlier reasons had incorrectly treated claims 8 and 16, leave was granted for further submissions on those claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Proceeding Concerning Validity of Claims of Australian Patent Number 748263 / Notice of Motion to Re Open Evidence and Make Further Submissions After Reasons for Judgment But Before Orders Were Made
Outcome
Leave granted for further submissions on claims 8 and 16; application to re-open evidence otherwise dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['re Opening Evidence' 'patent Validity' 'further Submissions' 'short Minutes of Order' 'omnibus Claims']
['intellectual Property' 'patent Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['re Opening Evidence' 'patent Validity' 'further Submissions' 'short Minutes of Order' 'omnibus Claims']

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 Proceeding Concerning Validity of Claims of Australian Patent Number 748263 / Notice of Motion to Re Open Evidence and Make Further Submissions After Reasons for Judgment But Before Orders Were Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to re-open the evidence by tendering a document and reading a further affidavit of Mr Culley.' 'Whether further submissions should be permitted on the validity of claims 8 and 16 of Australian Patent Number 748263.' 'Whether previous reasons should be clarified or corrected in relation to claims and prior authority.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to re-open the evidence because the relevant issue had been before the parties, had been addressed in the evidence, and the proposed additional evidence was said only to put the matter beyond doubt rather than to be absolutely necessary; reopening would add expense and time and undermine finality and the efficient conduct of the proceeding. However, because the Court accepted that its earlier reasons had incorrectly treated claims 8 and 16, leave was granted for further submissions on those claims.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for further submissions on claims 8 and 16; application to re-open evidence otherwise dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to the Applicant to re-open its case in respect of the validity of claims 8 and 16 of Australian Patent Number 748263 by making further submissions.' 'Leave be granted to the respondents to make further submissions on said claims.' 'The notice of motion filed in Court on 12 April 2007 by the...