Hanwha Solutions Corporation v REC Solar Pte Ltd (No 2)

Hanwha Solutions Corporation brought proceedings against REC Solar Pte Ltd, LONGi and Jinko, alleging patent infringement. The dispute involved multiple proceedings, with Hanwha seeking relief for infringement of its patent against three groups of respondents. The Amended Consolidated Particulars of Invalidity filed by the respondents identified numerous grounds of invalidity. Hanwha's infringement claim was unsuccessful, and REC Solar's cross-claim was partially successful in establishing anticipation of certain patent claims. This case concerns the assessment of costs following the trial. The parties disagreed on the appropriate basis for costs, with Hanwha proposing apportionment on a separate events basis and REC Solar advocating for a global or single event approach.

The legal issues centred on the appropriate basis for awarding costs in light of the partial success of the cross-claim and the overall unsuccessful infringement claim. The court had to determine whether the infringement claim and the validity cross-claim should be treated as separate events or a single event for costs purposes, and whether any of Hanwha's defences were alternative or unnecessary. Given that the infringement claim failed and the cross-claim was partially successful, the court had to consider the apportionment of costs between the parties and the potential impact of the three proceedings being heard together.

The court held that the infringement claim and the validity cross-claim should be treated as separate issues for the purposes of costs. Hanwha was ordered to pay 85% of REC Solar's costs for the infringement claim, and REC Solar was ordered to pay 33% of Hanwha's costs for the cross-claim. The court found that the costs of pre-trial case management hearings and evidence concerning the patent construction and common general knowledge should be apportioned 70% to the infringement claim and 30% to the cross-claim. The court also considered the possibility of an appeal and provided for a stay of the costs orders pending any appeal decision. The court noted that leave to appeal would generally be granted in these circumstances.

The final orders included the revocation of certain patent claims, dismissal of the cross-claim, and detailed provisions for the apportionment of costs. If the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs, the Registrar was directed to determine the amount. The court granted leave to apply for further orders if needed.