Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (No 4) [2018] FCA 1651

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (No 4) [2018] FCA 1651

The Respondents are not subject to the Chinese Cybersecurity Law and have not demonstrated that the State Secrets Law applies in a way that prevents discovery. Though Respondents are entitled to conduct a State secrets review, the inconvenience and expense of doing so does not justify relief from discovery obligations. Discovery must proceed, with possible timetable adjustment for State secrets review.

Parties
Applicant: Motorola Solutions, Inc.; First Respondent: Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd; Second Respondent: Hytera Communications (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 165 879 701
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in a Patent Infringement Proceeding / Determination of Applications for Relief From Discovery Orders
Outcome
Respondents' interlocutory application dismissed with costs; Applicant's prayers 1 and 2 in interlocutory application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Patents, State Secrets, Foreign Law Issues, Costs
Intellectual Property Practice and Procedure Discovery Patents State Secrets Foreign Law Issues Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motorola Solutions, Inc.

Applicant

Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd

First Respondent

Hytera Communications (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 165 879 701

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in a Patent Infringement Proceeding / Determination of Applications for Relief From Discovery Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Respondents should be relieved from discovery obligations for documents held in China potentially subject to Chinese law
  2. 2 Application of the Chinese Cybersecurity Law and State Secrets Law to discovery in Australian proceedings
  3. 3 Assessment of whether discovery orders are oppressive or disproportionate to costs incurred

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents are not subject to the Chinese Cybersecurity Law and have not demonstrated that the State Secrets Law applies in a way that prevents discovery. Though Respondents are entitled to conduct a State secrets review, the inconvenience and expense of doing so does not justify relief from discovery obligations. Discovery must proceed, with possible timetable adjustment for State secrets review.

Court Disposition

Respondents' interlocutory application dismissed with costs; Applicant's prayers 1 and 2 in interlocutory application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Respondents' interlocutory application filed on 27 September 2018 be dismissed with costs.
  • Prayers 1 and 2 of the Applicant's interlocutory application filed on 4 October 2018 be dismissed with no order as to costs.