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

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

D2 failed to provide a satisfactory reason for non-compliance given the Plaintiff had made clear it relied on version 2.0 of the source code; the correspondence and comparisons were unnecessary; an unless order was appropriate with a limited further period (until 4pm on 7 April 2000) and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

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
HCA13420/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Copyright Infringement / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Hearing on Unless Order for Failure to File Affidavit
Outcome
Unless order granted. D2 required 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 D2.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Unless Order, Disclosure / Source Code Inspection, Costs
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Copyright Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Unless Order Disclosure / Source Code Inspection 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 2 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

Civil Action for Copyright Infringement / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Hearing on Unless Order for Failure to File Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2 should be barred for failing to file and serve an affidavit in accordance with directions
  2. 2 Whether D2 offered a valid explanation for delay
  3. 3 Appropriate time period to permit compliance

Ratio Decidendi

D2 failed to provide a satisfactory reason for non-compliance given the Plaintiff had made clear it relied on version 2.0 of the source code; the correspondence and comparisons were unnecessary; an unless order was appropriate with a limited further period (until 4pm on 7 April 2000) and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Unless order granted. D2 required 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 D2.

Orders

  • Unless by 4pm on 7 April 2000 the 2nd Defendant files and serves an affidavit in response to the Plaintiff's affidavit, the 2nd Defendant shall be barred from filing and serving such affidavit at the hearing of the Plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction against the 2nd Defendant.
  • The costs of the Plaintiff's application are to be paid by the 2nd Defendant in any event.