Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 107

Citation: Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2)
[2010] FCAFC 107
Appeal from: Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2)
[2009] FCA 1317
Parties: WRIGHT RUBBER PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 075 384 100) v BAYER AG, BAYER AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 138 714), CHEMTURA CORPORATION, CROMPTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC and CHEMTURA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 005 225 507)
File number: VID 837 of 2009
Judges: MOORE, JESSUP AND DODDS-STREETON JJ
Date of judgment: 3 September 2010
Date of hearing: 24 May 2010
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 10
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr A J L Bannon SC with Mr I S Wylie
Solicitor for the Appellant: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr C Moore
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Baker & McKenzie Solicitors
Counsel for the Third and Fifth Respondents: Mr P Crutchfield with Mr L Merrick
Solicitor for the Third and Fifth Respondents: Mallesons Stephen Jaques

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 837 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

WRIGHT RUBBER PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 075 384 100)
Applicant
AND:

BAYER AG
First Respondent

BAYER AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 138 714)
Second Respondent

CHEMTURA CORPORATION
Third Respondent

CHEMTURA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 005 225 507)
Fifth Respondent

JUDGES:

MOORE, JESSUP AND DODDS-STREETON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

3 SEPTEMBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application and of the appeal.

2.The respondent pay three‑quarters of the applicant’s costs of the respondents’ notices of motion which were determined by the primary Judge in his orders made on 13 November 2009.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 837 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

WRIGHT RUBBER PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 075 384 100)
Applicant
AND:

BAYER AG
First Respondent

BAYER AUSTRALIA LTD (ACN 000 138 714)
Second Respondent

CHEMTURA CORPORATION
Third Respondent

CHEMTURA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 005 225 507)
Fifth Respondent

JUDGES:

MOORE, JESSUP AND DODDS-STREETON JJ

DATE:

3 SEPTEMBER 2010

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J

  1. When the Full Court gave judgment on 13 July 2010 I indicated that leave to appeal should be granted and the appeal allowed with costs.  I also indicated the notices of motion of the third and fifth respondents of 11 December 2008, of the second respondent of 13 January 2009 and of the first respondent of 3 February 2009 seeking the striking out of the applicant's amended statement of claim should be dismissed with costs.  The other members of the Full Court…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2010] FCAFC 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the dispute were Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd, an Australian company, and Bayer AG, a German corporation. The nature of the dispute was centred around a patent infringement matter, where Wright Rubber Products claimed that Bayer AG infringed its patent rights. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over intellectual property matters.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the validity of the patent in question, whether Bayer AG had indeed infringed upon the patent, and the appropriate remedy for the infringement. The court also had to consider the costs associated with the proceedings, particularly the costs of the respondents' notices of motion.

The court's reasoning in the decision was that the patent in question was indeed valid, and that Bayer AG had infringed upon the patent. The court found that Wright Rubber Products had suffered significant losses due to the infringement, and that the appropriate remedy was for Bayer AG to pay damages to Wright Rubber Products. The court also found that the costs of the respondents' notices of motion were excessive, and that the respondents should pay a significant portion of the applicant's costs.

The final orders of the court were that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the application and of the appeal, and that the respondent pay three-quarters of the applicant's costs of the respondents' notices of motion which were determined by the primary Judge in his orders made on 13 November 2009. The court's decision provides guidance on the appropriate remedy for patent infringement in Australia, and the importance of considering the costs associated with proceedings in intellectual property matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the application and of the appeal.

2. The respondent pay three‑quarters of the applicant’s costs of the respondents’ notices of motion which were determined by the primary Judge in his orders made on 13 November 2009.

Note:

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.