Dometic Australia Pty Ltd v Houghton Leisure Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 57

Dometic Australia Pty Ltd v Houghton Leisure Products Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 57

Given that both parties were unsuccessful in their primary claims and that the issues and costs of the claim and cross-claim were intertwined, it is appropriate to make a single order for costs with apportionment, rather than separate orders. Dometic is to pay 30% of the Respondents’ overall costs, adjusted upward from 20% to account for additional costs incurred due to interlocutory applications by Dometic.

Parties
First Applicant and First Cross Respondent: Dometic Australia Pty Ltd; Second Applicant and Second Cross Respondent: Dometic Sweden AB; First Respondent and Cross Claimant: Houghton Leisure Products Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Finch Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Invalidity Cross Claim / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Claim and Cross Claim
Outcome
Single costs order—Dometic to pay 30% of the Respondents' overall costs
Legal Topics
Patents, Costs, Apportionment, Offers of Compromise, Revocation, Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Costs Apportionment Offers of Compromise Revocation Infringement

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dometic Australia Pty Ltd

First Applicant and First Cross Respondent

Dometic Sweden AB

Second Applicant and Second Cross Respondent

Houghton Leisure Products Pty Ltd

First Respondent and Cross Claimant

Finch Australia Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Invalidity Cross Claim / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Claim and Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single order for costs is appropriate where both the patent infringement claim and the cross-claim for revocation were dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the cross-claim for invalidity was wholly defensive or independent
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' offer constituted a genuine offer to compromise for the purposes of the Federal Court Rules

Ratio Decidendi

Given that both parties were unsuccessful in their primary claims and that the issues and costs of the claim and cross-claim were intertwined, it is appropriate to make a single order for costs with apportionment, rather than separate orders. Dometic is to pay 30% of the Respondents’ overall costs, adjusted upward from 20% to account for additional costs incurred due to interlocutory applications by Dometic.

Court Disposition

Single costs order—Dometic to pay 30% of the Respondents' overall costs

Orders

  • The Applicants pay 30% of the Respondents' overall costs in the proceedings.