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

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

The court dismissed D2's application for Further and Better Particulars as premature under Ord.18 r.12(5) absent exceptional circumstances and adjourned D2's application for specific discovery of the Plaintiff's source code for a full hearing because contested issues of relevance and confidentiality required fuller ventilation; costs of the 4 January 2000 hearing were ordered to be paid by D2 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
4 January 2000
Case Number
HCA13420/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property (copyright) and Interim Relief / Directions Hearing / Chambers Applications (4 January 2000)
Outcome
Partial: Dismissal of D2's application for Further and Better Particulars; adjournment for argument of D2's specific discovery application; costs ordered against D2.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery of Source Code, Further and Better Particulars, Costs, Adjournment for Full Hearing, Undertakings in Lieu of Injunction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Copyright Interim Injunction Discovery Confidentiality Specific Discovery of Source Code Further and Better Particulars +3 more

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palm Computing, Inc.

Plaintiff

Echolink Design Ltd

1st Defendant

Kessel Electronics (H.K.) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property (copyright) and Interim Relief / Directions Hearing / Chambers Applications (4 January 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2 is entitled to specific discovery of the Plaintiff's source code
  2. 2 Whether parts of the source code sought are relevant and necessary for disposing of the action or saving costs
  3. 3 Whether an application for Further and Better Particulars is premature before service of a defence (Ord.18 r.12(5))

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed D2's application for Further and Better Particulars as premature under Ord.18 r.12(5) absent exceptional circumstances and adjourned D2's application for specific discovery of the Plaintiff's source code for a full hearing because contested issues of relevance and confidentiality required fuller ventilation; costs of the 4 January 2000 hearing were ordered to be paid by D2 to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Partial: Dismissal of D2's application for Further and Better Particulars; adjournment for argument of D2's specific discovery application; costs ordered against D2.

Orders

  • D2's summons against the Plaintiff for specific discovery (including source code) adjourned to a date to be fixed for argument
  • D2's summons against the Plaintiff requesting Further and Better Particulars of the Statement of Claim dismissed (without prejudice to D2's right to apply after service of its defence)