PALM COMPUTING, INC. v. ECHOLINK DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER

PALM COMPUTING, INC. v. ECHOLINK DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER

D2 offered no valid reason for failing to comply with the directions; the confusion over source code versions could and should have been clarified by enquiry; an unless order was appropriate to enforce compliance and a 21‑day period was sufficient; costs awarded to the Plaintiff as events followed the event.

Citation
PALM COMPUTING, INC. v. ECHOLINK DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Palm Computing, Inc.; 1st Defendant: Echolink Design Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Kessel Electronics (H.K.) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2000
Case Number
HCA11787/1999
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement; Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Pre Trial Directions and Disclosure Compliance
Outcome
Unless order made: D2 ordered to file and serve its affidavit by 4pm on 7 April 2000 or be barred from doing so at the interlocutory injunction hearing; costs to be paid by D2.
Legal Topics
Copyright, Interlocutory Injunction, Discovery/source Code Disclosure, Unless Order, Costs
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Interlocutory Injunction Discovery/source Code Disclosure Unless Order Costs

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palm Computing, Inc.

Plaintiff

Echolink Design Ltd

1st Defendant

Kessel Electronics (H.K.) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement; Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Pre Trial Directions and Disclosure Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2's delay in filing and serving affidavit justified
  2. 2 Whether an unless order should be made for non-compliance with directions
  3. 3 Appropriate time period to permit compliance

Ratio Decidendi

D2 offered no valid reason for failing to comply with the directions; the confusion over source code versions could and should have been clarified by enquiry; an unless order was appropriate to enforce compliance and a 21‑day period was sufficient; costs awarded to the Plaintiff as events followed the event.

Court Disposition

Unless order made: D2 ordered to file and serve its affidavit by 4pm on 7 April 2000 or be barred from doing so at the interlocutory injunction hearing; costs to be paid by D2.

Orders

  • Unless order: 2nd Defendant to file and serve an affidavit in response by 4pm on 7 April 2000 or be barred from doing so at the interlocutory injunction hearing.
  • Costs of the Plaintiff's application to be paid by the 2nd Defendant (in any event).