Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Lay Opinion Evidence) [2020] FCA 1129

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Lay Opinion Evidence) [2020] FCA 1129

Affidavit evidence expressing opinions on technical matters related to the development and capability of Hytera's DMR products is inadmissible as lay opinion because it is not 'necessary' under s 78, and is not admissible as expert opinion under s 79 without an examinable basis; certain statements regarding the witness’s understanding or beliefs are only admissible as evidence of state of mind where relevant to key issues and for no other purpose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (evidence Ruling) / Ruling on Evidentiary Objections During Trial
Outcome
Objection upheld in part; specified parts of the affidavit excluded as inadmissible opinion or not relevant as evidence of state of mind; certain paragraphs admitted for the limited purpose of showing state of mind only.
Legal Topics
['lay Opinion Evidence' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'copyright Damages' 'hearsay' 'relevance of Evidence']
['evidence Law' 'intellectual Property Law'] ['lay Opinion Evidence' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'copyright Damages' 'hearsay' 'relevance of Evidence']

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 (evidence Ruling) / Ruling on Evidentiary Objections During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether certain affidavit evidence constitutes inadmissible opinion evidence under s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Whether the evidence is admissible as lay opinion under s 78 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Admissibility of evidence of witness’s state of mind' 'Relevance of evidence under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

Affidavit evidence expressing opinions on technical matters related to the development and capability of Hytera's DMR products is inadmissible as lay opinion because it is not 'necessary' under s 78, and is not admissible as expert opinion under s 79 without an examinable basis; certain statements regarding the witness’s understanding or beliefs are only admissible as evidence of state of mind where relevant to key issues and for no other purpose.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld in part; specified parts of the affidavit excluded as inadmissible opinion or not relevant as evidence of state of mind; certain paragraphs admitted for the limited purpose of showing state of mind only.

Orders

  • ['Last sentence of paragraph 6 excluded as inadmissible opinion evidence.' 'Paragraph 8 excluded as inadmissible opinion evidence and not as state of mind.' 'First sentence of paragraph 18 admitted; last sentence of paragraph 18 admitted only as evidence of state of mind with limitation under s 136.' 'First sentence...