Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 613

Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 613

The respondent was entitled to its costs of the proceeding except in relation to costs incurred in connection with specific abandoned or unjustified grounds of invalidity. The applicants were not unreasonable in refusing the respondent’s offers of compromise; no indemnity costs order was warranted.

Parties
First Applicant: Sandvik Intellectual Property AB; Second Applicant: Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia (Production/Supply) Pty Ltd ACN 008 640 908; Respondent: Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd (ACN 002 572 303)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation Proceeding / Post Trial, on Costs
Outcome
Costs determined as apportioned between parties; no indemnity costs order granted.
Legal Topics
Costs, Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Offers of Compromise
Intellectual Property Patents Costs Patent Validity Patent Infringement Offers of Compromise

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

Parties

Sandvik Intellectual Property AB

First Applicant

Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia (Production/Supply) Pty Ltd ACN 008 640 908

Second Applicant

Quarry Mining & Construction Equipment Pty Ltd (ACN 002 572 303)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation Proceeding / Post Trial, on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs in patent infringement and revocation proceedings where partial success and abandoned claims are present
  2. 2 Whether refusal of offers of compromise was unreasonable so as to justify indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was entitled to its costs of the proceeding except in relation to costs incurred in connection with specific abandoned or unjustified grounds of invalidity. The applicants were not unreasonable in refusing the respondent’s offers of compromise; no indemnity costs order was warranted.

Court Disposition

Costs determined as apportioned between parties; no indemnity costs order granted.

Orders

  • The applicants pay the respondent's costs except in relation to specified allegations, including manner of manufacture, and certain claims about lack of clarity, fair basis, false suggestion, fraud, and anticipation at Angus Place Colliery.
  • The respondent pay the applicants' costs incurred only in connection with the excepted allegations.