Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Second Adjournment) [2020] FCA 987

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Second Adjournment) [2020] FCA 987

The adjournment application was premature and wrongly characterised the burdens on Hytera as being imposed by the refusal of an adjournment. The relevant burdens arose from Hytera's desire to call witnesses whom it might not be able to convey to Macau. The Court could more safely address any real non-attendance, prejudice, dispensation, hearsay or adjournment issues at trial with full information, and the rest of the trial could proceed even if issues remained concerning the six lay witnesses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Adjourn or Vacate Hearing in an Intellectual Property Patents Proceeding / Second Application by the Respondents to Adjourn the Part Heard Trial Scheduled to Recommence on 27 July 2020
Outcome
Respondents' interlocutory application to vacate the hearing scheduled on 27 July 2020 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Trial' 'virtual Trial' 'cross Examination by Video Link' 'witnesses in Mainland China' 'covid 19 Pandemic' 'hague Convention Evidence Procedure' 'hearsay Evidence' 'federal Court Rules R 29.09']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'intellectual Property' 'patents and Associated Statutes'] ['adjournment of Trial' 'virtual Trial' 'cross Examination by Video Link' 'witnesses in Mainland China' 'covid 19 Pandemic' 'hague Convention Evidence Procedure' 'hearsay Evidence' 'federal Court Rules R 29.09']

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

Interlocutory Application to Adjourn or Vacate Hearing in an Intellectual Property Patents Proceeding / Second Application by the Respondents to Adjourn the Part Heard Trial Scheduled to Recommence on 27 July 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondents' interlocutory application to vacate or adjourn the hearing scheduled for 27 July 2020 should be granted." 'Whether apprehended difficulties in bringing six mainland China witnesses to Macau for cross-examination during the COVID-19 pandemic justified an adjournment before trial.' 'Whether the question of relying on witness affidavits despite non-attendance for cross-examination should be determined at trial rather than on the adjournment application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment application was premature and wrongly characterised the burdens on Hytera as being imposed by the refusal of an adjournment. The relevant burdens arose from Hytera's desire to call witnesses whom it might not be able to convey to Macau. The Court could more safely address any real non-attendance, prejudice, dispensation, hearsay or adjournment issues at trial with full information, and the rest of the trial could proceed even if issues remained concerning the six lay witnesses.

Court Disposition

Respondents' interlocutory application to vacate the hearing scheduled on 27 July 2020 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents' interlocutory application dated 2 July 2020 to vacate the hearing scheduled on 27 July 2020 be dismissed." "The Respondents pay the Applicant's costs of the application to adjourn as taxed, agreed or assessed." 'The matter be listed for case management on 14 July 2020 at 4.00 pm.']