In a statement of claim filed around April last year, Stasiuk alleged the companies infringed his patent entitled “laser-etched pull tab container opening devices and methods of making the same”.

To keep his claim alive, the court made an order for Stasiuk to pay security of costs up to the close of pleadings in the sum of $50,000. A further order was made seven months later for another $350,000.

However, the infringement proceedings began to be marred by a number of errors from September 2023, when Stasiuk’s former solicitors informed the court it was no longer acting for him.

When asked to provide a notice of address for service, Stasiuk provided a “temporary” address in the Cayman Islands, which was in breach of a Federal Court rule that the address be within Australia.

By the time the second security of costs order was made in February 2024, Stasiuk had still not provided an Australian address despite informing the court he was “in the midst of changing legal counsel” and had failed to file and serve his evidence in chief.

In written submissions following the proceedings being dismissed, Monster Energy AU and Monster Energy Company said it should receive indemnity costs because of two offers of settlement.

The first was put forward on a “walk away” basis, where Stasiuk would discontinue proceedings, be barred from commencing future infringement proceedings, and each party would bear their own costs.

VIEW ALL

Stasiuk rejected this and made a counteroffer of US$20,000,000.

While Monster Energy AU and Monster Energy Company said it was a “genuine offer of compromise”, Justice John Nicholas said he was not satisfied it was or that it was unreasonable for Stasiuk to reject it.

At the time the first offer was made, the court had not yet made orders for the filing of evidence in chief and, with it being such an early stage of the matter, “it was not … unreasonable for the applicant to reject an offer to discontinue the proceedings”.

The next offer was made in November for the sum of US$220,000 to be paid to Stasiuk, along with legal costs.

By that stage, Monster Energy had been ordered to put forward the product and process description (PPD), and Stasiuk was in possession of this information for over two months.

“From this, I would infer the costs and uncertainty of pursuing the case to be justified,” Justice Nicholas said.

“In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it was unreasonable of the applicant not to have accepted the offer of compromise.”

However, given Stasiuk was granted an extension to file evidence in chief until January 2024, and this was not opposed by the respondents, Justice Nicholas said they would not be entitled to indemnity costs until after the period ending 1 December 2023.