Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 168

Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 168

The appellants were wholly unsuccessful on the appeal and the cross-appellants were wholly unsuccessful on the cross-appeal, so both were dismissed. Because the appeal and cross-appeal were factually interconnected, the appropriate costs order was that the appellants/cross-respondents pay 50 per cent of the respondents/cross-appellants' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal in aggregate. The Court was not satisfied that the record provided an evidentiary basis for the proposed declaration of eligible persons and gave the parties 14 days to file evidence and submissions on that issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland / Orders for Final Relief and Costs Following Polwood Pty Ltd V Foxworth Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 9
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; appellants/cross-respondents to pay 50 per cent of the respondents/cross-appellants' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal; parties given 14 days to file evidence and submissions concerning a declaration of right.
Legal Topics
['patent Entitlement' 'joint Inventorship' 'breach of Confidence Relief' 'three Dimensional Copyright Infringement' 'costs of Appeal and Cross Appeal' 'declaration of Right']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'copyright' 'costs'] ['patent Entitlement' 'joint Inventorship' 'breach of Confidence Relief' 'three Dimensional Copyright Infringement' 'costs of Appeal and Cross Appeal' 'declaration of Right']

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 Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland / Orders for Final Relief and Costs Following Polwood Pty Ltd V Foxworth Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 9

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal should be dismissed after Polwood failed in its claims to sole patent entitlement and relief for breach of confidence.' 'Whether the cross-appeal should be dismissed after Peachester Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd and Paul David Power failed in their copyright infringement claims.' 'Whether a declaration should be made identifying the eligible persons entitled to registration as co-owners of the patent applications.' 'What costs orders should be made for the appeal, cross-appeal and trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were wholly unsuccessful on the appeal and the cross-appellants were wholly unsuccessful on the cross-appeal, so both were dismissed. Because the appeal and cross-appeal were factually interconnected, the appropriate costs order was that the appellants/cross-respondents pay 50 per cent of the respondents/cross-appellants' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal in aggregate. The Court was not satisfied that the record provided an evidentiary basis for the proposed declaration of eligible persons and gave the parties 14 days to file evidence and submissions on that issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; appellants/cross-respondents to pay 50 per cent of the respondents/cross-appellants' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal; parties given 14 days to file evidence and submissions concerning a declaration of right.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The cross-appeal is dismissed.' "The appellants shall pay 50 per cent of the respondents' costs of the appeal." "The cross-respondents to the cross-appeal pay 50 per cent of the cross-appellants' costs of the cross-appeal." 'Within fourteen days of the date of publication of these...