Equivalent Cooling Tower Co Pty Ltd v Pritchard Cooling Tower Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1648

Equivalent Cooling Tower Co Pty Ltd v Pritchard Cooling Tower Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1648

The application for interlocutory injunction must be refused due to the balance of convenience not favouring its grant; damages are an adequate remedy and the respondent's undertakings mitigate risk. Petty patent considerations are relevant to the balance of convenience.

Parties
Applicant: Equivalent Cooling Tower Company Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Pritchard Cooling Tower Services Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Pritchard Pacific Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Gregory William Wilcox
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Patent Infringement, Balance of Convenience, Petty Patent
Intellectual Property Patents Interlocutory Injunction Patent Infringement Balance of Convenience Petty Patent

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equivalent Cooling Tower Company Pty Ltd

Applicant

Pritchard Cooling Tower Services Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Pritchard Pacific Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Gregory William Wilcox

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding patent infringement
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of an interlocutory injunction
  3. 3 Adequacy of damages as a remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interlocutory injunction must be refused due to the balance of convenience not favouring its grant; damages are an adequate remedy and the respondent's undertakings mitigate risk. Petty patent considerations are relevant to the balance of convenience.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondents to keep full and accurate records of all alleged infringing fill grid panels supplied under Contract SB305 and related financial accounts.
  • Respondents not to tender for or contract to use the fill grid without prior written notice to the applicant specifying details of any proposed bid or contract.