Dynamite Games Pty Limited v Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 980

Dynamite Games Pty Limited v Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 980

The Court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction because the proceeding involved relief under the Patents Act, that the proceeding was of a kind mentioned in Order 8, rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules, that the applicant had a prima facie case for relief against the second respondent within Order 8, rule 3(2)(c), and that the evidence supported the proposed service in the United States of America; leave to serve the Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim on the second respondent was therefore granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Serve the Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim on the Second Respondent in the United States of America
Outcome
Leave granted to the applicant to serve the Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim on the second respondent in the United States of America.
Legal Topics
['service Outside Australia' 'leave to Serve Originating Process in a Foreign Country' 'prima Facie Case for Patent Infringement' 'exploitation and Authorisation of Exploitation of Patented Invention']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'civil Procedure'] ['service Outside Australia' 'leave to Serve Originating Process in a Foreign Country' 'prima Facie Case for Patent Infringement' 'exploitation and Authorisation of Exploitation of Patented Invention']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Serve the Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim on the Second Respondent in the United States of America

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction in the proceeding for the purposes of Order 8, rule 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the proceeding was of a kind mentioned in Order 8, rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the applicant had a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed against the second respondent.' 'Whether the proposed method of service in the United States of America was supported by evidence satisfying Order 8, rule 3(3) of the Federal Court Rules.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction because the proceeding involved relief under the Patents Act, that the proceeding was of a kind mentioned in Order 8, rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules, that the applicant had a prima facie case for relief against the second respondent within Order 8, rule 3(2)(c), and that the evidence supported the proposed service in the United States of America; leave to serve the Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim on the second respondent was therefore granted.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the applicant to serve the Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim on the second respondent in the United States of America.

Orders

  • ["The Court grants leave to the Applicant to serve the Amended Application filed in Court on 1 September 2010 and the Amended Statement of Claim filed in Court on 1 September 2010 on the second Respondent, in accordance with Order 8 rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules, in the United States of America by private agent...