Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 140

Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 140

A springboard injunction was refused because damages or an account of profits were adequate and any unwarranted advantage was of diminished significance as the patented feature had little causative effect on the contracts; additionally, granting the injunction would adversely affect innocent third parties (the councils). Orders for delivery up were refused because the opaque luminaires were not infringing, the casing units were not shown to be infringing products on the evidence, and delivery up would go beyond what is necessary to protect the patentee's rights and cause unjustifiable economic waste.

Parties
Applicant: Streetworx Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Murray John Saint
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Post Liability, Final Relief Orders
Outcome
Applications for springboard injunction and delivery up refused. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Patents, Remedies, Injunctions, Relief for Patent Infringement, Orders for Delivery Up
Intellectual Property Law Patents Remedies Injunctions Relief for Patent Infringement Orders for Delivery Up

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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Streetworx Pty Ltd

Applicant

Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Murray John Saint

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Post Liability, Final Relief Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a springboard injunction should be granted to restrain supply of non-infringing products where contracts were obtained through infringement.
  2. 2 Whether orders for delivery up of allegedly infringing and modified products are justified.

Ratio Decidendi

A springboard injunction was refused because damages or an account of profits were adequate and any unwarranted advantage was of diminished significance as the patented feature had little causative effect on the contracts; additionally, granting the injunction would adversely affect innocent third parties (the councils). Orders for delivery up were refused because the opaque luminaires were not infringing, the casing units were not shown to be infringing products on the evidence, and delivery up would go beyond what is necessary to protect the patentee's rights and cause unjustifiable economic waste.

Court Disposition

Applications for springboard injunction and delivery up refused. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for orders for delivery up is refused.
  • The applicant's application for a springboard injunction is refused.