Guttershield Systems Australia Pty Limited v LBI Holdings Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 747

Guttershield Systems Australia Pty Limited v LBI Holdings Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 747

The costs payable under paragraph 2(a) were confined to actual historic costs incurred by Leafbusters and Polymesh in development of the Five Patents. The Court accepted only development costs accepted by the Plaintiffs for Paul Groom and Thea Groom and patent attorney costs excluding the assignment invoice, and rejected disputed items not proved to be development costs, travel calculated by kilometre allowance, arms-length costing and indexation. The Court was not satisfied that the Plaintiffs or Mr Wickett performed development work on the 3G mesh during the relevant periods, but accepted that the Drainsock trademark should be included among the relevant intellectual property with no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Reference for Determination / Reference to Associate Judge to Determine Costs and Identify Intellectual Property Under Orders Made on 17 December 2004
Outcome
Reference determined.
Legal Topics
['patent Development Costs' 'beneficial Interest in Patents' 'reference for Determination' 'historic Cost Versus Arms Length Cost' 'identification of Intellectual Property Developed During Commercial Alliance']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['patent Development Costs' 'beneficial Interest in Patents' 'reference for Determination' 'historic Cost Versus Arms Length Cost' 'identification of Intellectual Property Developed During Commercial Alliance']

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

Intellectual Property Reference for Determination / Reference to Associate Judge to Determine Costs and Identify Intellectual Property Under Orders Made on 17 December 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs were incurred by Leafbusters Pty Limited and Polymesh Australasia Group Pty Limited in development of the Five Patents.' 'What patents, registered designs or other items of intellectual property were the subject of the undertakings in paragraphs 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) of the short minutes of 17 December 2004.' 'Whether development costs should be calculated on a historic cost basis or an arms-length cost basis.' 'Whether asserted costs for meetings, travel, patent attorney work and work by Mr and Mrs Groom were properly attributable to development of the Five Patents.' 'Whether the 3G mesh was intellectual property developed by the Plaintiffs or Mr Wickett during the Alliance period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs payable under paragraph 2(a) were confined to actual historic costs incurred by Leafbusters and Polymesh in development of the Five Patents. The Court accepted only development costs accepted by the Plaintiffs for Paul Groom and Thea Groom and patent attorney costs excluding the assignment invoice, and rejected disputed items not proved to be development costs, travel calculated by kilometre allowance, arms-length costing and indexation. The Court was not satisfied that the Plaintiffs or Mr Wickett performed development work on the 3G mesh during the relevant periods, but accepted that the Drainsock trademark should be included among the relevant intellectual property with no...

Court Disposition

Reference determined.

Orders

  • ['The costs referred to in paragraph 2(a) of the short minutes of 17 December 2004 are determined in the amount of $31,977.05.' 'The patents, registered designs or other items of intellectual property that are the subject of undertakings referred to in paragraphs 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) of the short minutes are: Gutter...