FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (No 5) [2018] FCA 1653
File number: NSD 1283 of 2017 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 1 November 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for additional discovery order – where respondents seek to adduce further evidence Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Date of hearing: 1 November 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Intellectual Property Sub-area: Patents and associated Statutes Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Moore SC with Mr A Lang Solicitor for the Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills Counsel for the Respondents: Mr C Dimitriadis SC with Mr C Burgess Solicitor for the Respondents: Minter Ellison REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NSD 1283 of 2017 BETWEEN: MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
Applicant
AND: HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LTD
First Respondent
HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 165 879 701
Second Respondent
PERRAM J:
The Applicant seeks an order that by 5 November 2018 the Respondents give discovery of the RF HAL object code files referred to in paragraph 8(c) of the affidavit of Ni Huang, dated 13 September 2018. The Applicant seeks this order because the Respondents have lost the source code which was previously ordered to be discovered. This application is opposed by the Respondents on a number of bases and they seek the opportunity to put on evidence relating to those issues.
Only one of the issues raised by Mr Dimitriadis SC on behalf of the Respondents appeared to me to raise a serious concern. This was the suggestion that in the process of decompiling the object code matters not relating to RF HAL would be revealed. It seems to me that is a serious matter. The other matters raised by Mr Dimitriadis, which went to the utility of the process, do not appear to be of any moment.
I am not going to permit discovery in this case now to bog down the case in its entirety. Having regard to case management principles embodied in provisions such as s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), I am not going to give the Respondents an opportunity to put on evidence on a topic which it seems to me would just result in another hearing and probably result in nothing. In that circumstance, I am prepared to make an order in the form proposed by the Applicant but there will need to be some additional orders made which will provide that, in the circumstance that the decompilation process results in source code unrelated to RF HAL, that additional code will need to be destroyed or returned to the Respondents.
Further, if a decompilation process fails or simply produces garbage, everything which has been done on the Applicant’s side will need to be destroyed or returned to the Respondents.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. Associate:
Dated: 1 November 2018
- AGLC
- Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (No 5) [2018] FCA 1653
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1653
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondents were entitled to adduce additional evidence beyond what had been previously disclosed. This involved assessing the merits of the respondents' application and determining if the new evidence was relevant and necessary for the fair determination of the case. The court had to consider whether there had been any waiver or estoppel preventing the respondents from relying on the additional evidence, as well as whether the respondents had acted reasonably and in good faith.
The court found that the respondents had not waived their right to adduce the additional evidence and that there was no estoppel preventing them from doing so. The court emphasised the importance of the respondents acting reasonably and in good faith in making their application. In assessing the relevance and necessity of the new evidence, the court concluded that the evidence was indeed relevant and necessary for the fair determination of the case. Consequently, the court granted the respondents' application for additional discovery.
As a result of the court's decision, the respondents were permitted to adduce the additional evidence in the proceedings. The court's ruling underscored the importance of parties acting in good faith and reasonably when making applications for additional discovery, and highlighted the need for proper disclosure and cooperation in litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.