Novozymes A/S v Danisco A/S (No 2)

Novozymes A/S was involved in a dispute with Danisco A/S over the validity of certain claims in an Australian patent. The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to decide on the revocation of some, but not all, claims in the patent, as well as on the form of orders appropriate to reflect the revocation of those claims. The case also considered whether the presumptive entitlement to costs should be qualified and the effect of an offer of compromise.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the validity of specific claims in the patent, and the appropriate form of orders to reflect the revocation of those claims. The court also considered the principles governing the presumptive entitlement to costs and the effect of an offer of compromise on that entitlement. The court had to decide whether the presumptive entitlement to costs should be qualified in light of an offer of compromise, and if so, to what extent.

The court found that certain claims in the patent were invalid, and therefore revoked those claims. The court set aside certain paragraphs of orders made by the primary judge, and released the appellants from an undertaking given to the court. The court also determined that the presumptive entitlement to costs should be qualified in light of an offer of compromise, and ordered that the respondents pay certain proportions of the appellants' costs. The court held that the respondents should pay 85% of the appellants' costs incurred on or before 16 October 2009, and 100% of those costs incurred after that date. The court further ordered that the respondents pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.

The court made orders revoking certain claims in the patent, setting aside certain orders made by the primary judge, and ordering the respondents to pay certain proportions of the appellants' costs. The court also held that the presumptive entitlement to costs should be qualified in light of an offer of compromise, and ordered that the respondents pay the appellants' costs of the appeal. The orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.