Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd

In Seiko Epson Corporation v Calidad Pty Ltd, the dispute between Seiko Epson Corporation (Seiko) and Calidad Pty Ltd (Calidad) was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary contention in this case revolved around allegations of patent infringement, trade mark infringement, breach of statutory duties under the Trade Marks Act 1995, and breaches of the Australian Consumer Law. Seiko accused Calidad of infringing its patents and engaging in activities that violated statutory duties and consumer laws. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate form of declaratory relief and the method for awarding costs between the parties.

The court faced two main legal issues. The first was whether to grant the specific form of declaratory relief sought by Calidad, which pertained to the conduct outlined in specific paragraphs of the judgment and the infringement of patents. The second issue was the appropriate method of awarding costs, considering the varying degrees of success on different claims. The court had to decide if a general award of costs or an issues-based approach was more suitable, and how to apportion the costs between the parties.

The court ruled that the requested declaratory relief was not necessary as the judgment already clearly outlined the legal position. Consequently, the court declined to make the declaration sought by Calidad. Regarding costs, the court opted for an issues-based approach, awarding costs according to the success of the parties on separate grounds. Seiko was directed to pay Calidad’s costs relating to specific claims, while Calidad was ordered to pay a portion of Seiko’s costs relating to the patent infringement claim. The court further reserved costs associated with a breach of the Settlement Deed for later determination.

The court's final orders included directives for Calidad to deliver up infringing printer cartridges and permanent restraints against engaging in certain activities that infringe Seiko’s patents. The court also ordered inquiries into damages and profits from the infringements, with a temporary stay on these inquiries pending any potential appeal. The case was ultimately dismissed in most respects, with specific provisions for costs and a requirement for a case management hearing to be scheduled.