BAYCITY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED V UTTINGER HC AK CIV 2006-404-7709

BAYCITY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED V UTTINGER HC AK CIV 2006-404-7709

DairySense's counterclaim failed to plead with sufficient particularity the identity of the primary infringer, the specific instances of alleged primary infringement, and the precise acts by which BayCity procured or induced that infringement; absent those pleaded particulars the applications for further discovery,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-e54bf5eb_5b06_41a2_be0c_392f8bed99ae.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff/counterclaim Defendant: BayCity Technologies Limited; First Defendant: Michael Joseph Uttinger; Second Defendant/counterclaim Plaintiff: DairySense LLC
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement Counterclaim / Interlocutory Applications for Discovery, Interrogatories and Inspection Prior to Trial
Outcome
Applications for further and better discovery, for orders that BayCity answer interrogatories, and for inspection of the UAD4 data logger (including disassembly) declined; application for inspection of software deferred pending agreement or further directions; costs to BayCity on a 2B basis.
Legal Topics
Contributory Infringement, Discovery, Interrogatories, Inspection of Evidence, Pleading Particularity
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Contributory Infringement Discovery Interrogatories Inspection of Evidence Pleading Particularity

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BayCity Technologies Limited

Plaintiff/counterclaim Defendant

Michael Joseph Uttinger

First Defendant

DairySense LLC

Second Defendant/counterclaim Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement Counterclaim / Interlocutory Applications for Discovery, Interrogatories and Inspection Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contributory infringement claim was pleaded with sufficient particularity
  2. 2 Whether BayCity must provide further discovery and answer interrogatories based on the counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether inspection and disassembly of the UAD4 device and access to associated software should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

DairySense's counterclaim failed to plead with sufficient particularity the identity of the primary infringer, the specific instances of alleged primary infringement, and the precise acts by which BayCity procured or induced that infringement; absent those pleaded particulars the applications for further discovery, answers to interrogatories and inspection (including disassembly) were not justified and were declined, with software inspection deferred pending agreement on scope and confidentiality.

Court Disposition

Applications for further and better discovery, for orders that BayCity answer interrogatories, and for inspection of the UAD4 data logger (including disassembly) declined; application for inspection of software deferred pending agreement or further directions; costs to BayCity on a 2B basis.

Orders

  • Applications for further and better discovery declined
  • Applications that BayCity answer interrogatories declined