New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Patent infringement

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2022

INTECH INC v WAREHAM STEAMSHIP CORPORATION [on application by non-party for access to Court documents] [2022] NZHC 2146

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2146
Court

High Court

Sealegs' application was dismissed because it failed to show adequate, particularised reasons under r12 for access to the entire Intech Court file; there is not a close enough connection between the proceedings to justify general access; granting access would undermine the orderly and fair administration of justice and risk disclosure of commercially sensitive and untested material before substantive hearings and would improperly circumvent supervised discovery processes.
8 Oct 2015

DOUG ANDREWS HEATING AND VENTILATION LIMITED AND MULTI KC LIMITED v WAYNE JAMES DIL [2015] NZSC 141

Citation

[2015] NZSC 141
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal denied because the High Court and Court of Appeal applied orthodox claim construction and there was no issue of public or general importance nor a miscarriage of justice; accordingly no appeal on infringement or cross-appeal on validity was permitted and costs were awarded to the respondents.
6 Aug 2015

ASSA ABLOY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ALLEGION (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1859

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1859
Court

High Court

The Court granted the adjournment, vacated the 17 August 2015 trial and fixed a new trial date commencing 18 April 2016 for 14 days; Asher J retains carriage of case management; prior case management directions including the split trial direction and specified paragraphs of Asher J's 25 February 2015 Minute are vacated and replaced by the discovery and timetabling directions set out, including deadlines for verified discovery regarding the Sentry lock and timetabled steps for any targeted discovery applications.
25 Oct 2012

CONSOLIDATED ALLOYS (NZ) LTD V EDGING SYSTEMS (NZ) LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-003021

Citation

openlaw-acb44d7e_60a3_4594_b9be_a566c64b7e1f.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to serve interrogatories was granted only in respect of questions that directly related to whether the second defendant caused or was responsible for the alleged unlawful acts (interrogatories 5(a)–(h) and 5(o)), with limited wording amendments, because the plaintiff reasonably expected a brief from the second defendant and the questions sought direct facts not oppressive investigation; other interrogatories were refused as oppressive, irrelevant or seeking detailed discovery; the court will accept admissible evidence that a 'will say' statement existed without admitting its contents si…
2 Oct 2012

DOUG ANDREWS HEATING AND VENTILATION LTD V DIL HC AK CIV-2009-404-4759

Citation

openlaw-ef17511e_ab84_4460_a96c_f240d0669a1b.pdf
Court

High Court

Joinder of Multi KC Limited granted under r4.56 because MKC and DAHV have materially identical interests and the joinder does not amount to MKC 'bringing' proceedings so ss72 and 85 are not engaged; leave granted under r22.25 for the third defendant to amend particulars to add additional alleged prior art because the amendments raise matters of public interest in testing patent validity, there was no demonstrable prejudice given the trial is a year away, and the merits of prior-use allegations are predominantly factual and for trial rather than for interlocutory determination.
19 Jul 2012

STEWART V FRANMARA INC HC AK CIV-2011-404-2584

Citation

openlaw-e53087c6_4a33_4796_a299_c0d474f991a9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court assumed jurisdiction to determine alleged infringement of the US patent because the defendant did not contest jurisdiction or challenge the patent's validity; damages are to be quantified under New Zealand law (lex fori) so US remedies for enhanced damages are not available; the Court declined to grant relief under the California statute for which no jurisdictional basis was shown.
26 Mar 2012

STEWART V FRANMARA INC. HC AK CIV-2011-404-2584

Citation

openlaw-ddeafc92_3470_4805_8905_0591ea849f9c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court finds the defendant breached the confidentiality agreement and infringed the plaintiff's New Zealand patent by manufacturing and marketing a bottle opener that copies the invention; plaintiff is entitled to damages assessed as a reasonable royalty of US$133,000 per annum from 23 September 2005 to 26 March 2012 (total US$864,500), interest at specified rates for the infringement period, and costs; jurisdiction to adjudicate the US patent claim and the California unfair competition claim is reserved for further submissions.
9 Aug 2011

SANOFI-ADVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH V AFT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-001795

Citation

openlaw-c9cc3d81_615d_4f18_9815_5a3053f9b34a.pdf
Court

High Court

Pharmac lacks the requisite legal interest because the effects on it are commercial/indirect and its voluntary undertaking does not create a legal right; it failed to show its joinder would materially assist the Court or add a distinct perspective beyond AFT's representation; therefore the Court will not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to join Pharmac as an interested party in this private patent dispute.
10 Jun 2011

C DOBBIE V CRISTAL AIR LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-7192

Citation

openlaw-5a86de86_d9e5_4e69_a598_427a9f80dc42.pdf
Court

High Court

The threshold under r 5.45 was not met because the defendants failed to produce credible evidence of a serious risk that the plaintiff would be unable to pay costs; the judge accepted that the plaintiff had previously met costs when enforcement steps were taken, there was no adverse credit reporting, and it was likely the plaintiff would take steps to avoid personal insolvency despite the family home being held in a trust, so the risk of non-payment was not sufficiently established.
11 Jun 2010

STEELBRO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V HAMMAR MASKIN AB AND ORS SC 36/2010

Citation

SC 36/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate any arguable matter of significance beyond the parties and failed to show that the Court of Appeal's application of Lucas was manifestly wrong; consequently there was no appearance of substantial error warranting correction by this Court.