New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Patent validity

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2014

ASSA ABLOY NZ LTD v ALLEGION (NZ) LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2227

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2227
Court

High Court

The Court allowed the proposed patent amendment but rejected the defendant's claim to costs for wasted time and expense; the defendant was not in the position of a successful strike-out applicant and the prior art remains relevant to substantive proceedings, so costs relating to that work are not recoverable on this application; in the interests of overall justice costs on the application are to lie where they fall.
16 Apr 2010

PUREDEPTH LIMITED V NCP TRADING HC AK CIV 2010-404-000974

Citation

openlaw-7f9e5611_0a12_459f_9a94_fb4c472ac3a6.pdf
Court

High Court

LG Display Co Limited was properly joined as a defendant because its presence was necessary for determination of infringement and validity and a cause of action against it could be pleaded; the court found there was a serious question to be tried but declined to grant a final interim injunction that would shut down NCP; instead the court ordered interim protective measures requiring NCP to place a reasonable sum into escrow or provide a letter of credit to cover estimated royalties and to provide independent sales records for verification, with specified per‑unit royalty equivalents for ident…
2 Dec 2009

LUCAS AND ANOR V PETERSON PORTABLE SAWING SYSTEMS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2001-404-3668

Citation

openlaw-f6f17b14_fbee_48c0_a4d4_95c9c6ead048.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 74 is directed to groundless threats of proceedings and is not designed to compensate a party for losses resulting from actual litigation once proceedings have been issued; the second defendant's pleaded counterclaim alleging both threats and the bringing of proceedings is mismatched to s74 and discloses no tenable cause of action and is therefore struck out; the second defendant is, however, entitled to reasonable disbursements of $2,419; costs otherwise lie where they fall and no party-party costs are awarded to the self-represented defendant.
30 Oct 2006

WARD V GENESIS EQUIPMENT & ORS AK CIV-2005-404-1686

Citation

openlaw-dd2bc053_7dd3_44d7_ab48_5904cc674773.pdf
Court

High Court

The court refused to order consolidation or coordinated hearing because the proceedings were at different stages and consolidation would be unfair; documents relating to the confidentiality agreement were not relevant on the face of the current pleadings and so discovery of them was refused; costs of the defendants' earlier application for further and better particulars were awarded on a 2B basis.
18 May 2006

PAUL V HUME PINE (NZ) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-1752

Citation

openlaw-ba1389b6_fd19_47f1_a34b_653df754497a.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff acted reasonably in commencing and pursuing the proceedings until he could inspect the alleged prior use; increased costs were not justified under r 48C(3)(b); costs assessed on Band C with additional allowances for inspections and discovery totalling $18,270, with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; defendants awarded costs of this application on Category 2 Band B.

New Zealand Case Law

ASSA ABLOY NZ LTD v ALLEGION (NZ) LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2227

PUREDEPTH LIMITED V NCP TRADING HC AK CIV 2010-404-000974

LUCAS AND ANOR V PETERSON PORTABLE SAWING SYSTEMS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2001-404-3668

WARD V GENESIS EQUIPMENT & ORS AK CIV-2005-404-1686

PAUL V HUME PINE (NZ) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-1752