Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia (No 13)

Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Limited v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia (No 13) [2025] FCA 1078 is a Federal Court patents decision about remedy-stage procedure. The court was not re-running the main infringement trial. Instead, Burley J had to decide whether VMS, which had already succeeded to some extent in the patent case, should now be required to choose between damages and an account of profits against the City of Melbourne.

The court ordered VMS to notify the City of its election in writing within 21 days of 4 September 2025. The orders also required VMS to pay the costs of the 10 July 2025 hearing and preparation for it, and the costs related to its application to re-open and rely on a later affidavit. The judgment shows a strong case management focus. Once enough financial information has been produced, the court may require a claimant to commit to one remedy path rather than keep both options open.

VMS sued SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia and the City of Melbourne in patent infringement proceedings. The reasons say the trial was heard in March and April 2021 by Besanko J. In 2023, Besanko J held that a number of VMS’s patent infringement allegations succeeded and that a cross-claim alleging invalidity failed. SARB appealed. On 9 February 2024, the Full Court allowed the appeal in part, but still found that some valid claims had been infringed.

After the matter was remitted, the remaining issues concerned pecuniary relief. Besanko J had retired, so Burley J managed the case from June 2024. By then, the dispute had narrowed. The key live issue in this judgment was not whether infringement had occurred in a general sense, but whether VMS had to elect now between damages and an account of profits in relation to the City.

The commercial setting involved the City’s use of Pinforce systems and the issuing of parking infringement notices. Earlier orders required the City to provide affidavit evidence and supporting documents relevant to quantum. That included the number of Pinforce Version 1 and Version 3 devices used or kept for use, the number of parking infringement notices issued using those systems, the City’s bona fide estimate of revenue generated from those notices, and the City’s bona fide estimate of costs incurred in generating that revenue.

That information mattered because an account of profits requires close attention to profits said to be attributable to the infringing conduct, including what revenue should be counted and what costs may properly be deducted. Damages, by contrast, involve a different remedial focus. So the more information VMS had about the City’s revenue and costs, the stronger the argument that it should be able to choose one remedy and move the case forward.

The procedural history was important. The City had filed an affidavit in June 2024 in purported compliance with an earlier order. At a case management hearing on 23 October 2024, VMS criticised that affidavit. Burley J considered it inadequate and non-compliant and ordered a further compliant affidavit. The court also ordered the City and SARB to pay VMS’s costs of that unnecessary case management hearing forthwith because they had failed to comply with similar affidavit obligations.

The City then filed a further and more detailed affidavit from Mr Robertson on 6 November 2024. Mr Robertson explained the City’s databases, reporting databases, weekly reports and a summary spreadsheet used to track parking infringement notice revenue and expenses. He also described formulas used to apportion branch expenses and line-item costs. The City’s position was that this material gave VMS enough information to make its election. VMS disagreed and opposed being compelled to choose at that stage.

This judgment is especially useful because it shows the kind of business records that can become central once an IP case reaches the remedy stage. The court recorded that VMS had issued notices to produce and that the respondents had filed affidavits with supporting documentation. VMS had also filed points of claim for pecuniary relief, and the respondents had filed points in answer. In those points of claim, VMS identified the bases on which it sought damages and, alternatively against the City, an account of profits.

The City’s later affidavit evidence was detailed. Mr Robertson said that records relating to parking infringement notices issued from 9 May 2013 until Pinforce Version 1 was phased out in 2016 were stored in four databases: Pinforce, Sentinel, Pathway and TechOne. The City also maintained reporting databases comprising subsets of data from those databases for reporting purposes. From June 2017, a staff member built and maintained weekly reports tracking parking infringement notice revenue and expenses and the cost of issuing those notices, as well as a summary spreadsheet tracking financial performance.

The reasons also describe how the summary spreadsheet worked. Some data was used directly, such as total parking infringement notice receipts. Other data required accounting treatment or apportionment to be meaningful, such as overhead costs. The judgment refers to formulas used to apportion branch expenses to notices issued using in-ground sensor technology. It also refers to spreadsheets showing how individual line-item costs were first apportioned to branch expenses before those branch expenses were then apportioned again to the relevant notices.

That level of detail matters in practice. In many businesses, internal spreadsheets are built for management reporting, not litigation. But if a dispute reaches the remedy stage, those spreadsheets may become evidence. A court may want to know not just the final number, but how it was built, what assumptions were used, who made the allocations, and whether the methodology is consistent with the business’s actual operations.

The judgment also shows the importance of procedural conduct. The City’s earlier affidavit was found inadequate and non-compliant. That led to further orders and costs consequences. So while the City later relied on fuller evidence to argue that VMS should now elect, the case still illustrates a broader point: poor compliance can create delay, extra hearings and extra cost, even if the evidence is eventually improved.

For businesses involved in litigation, this is a reminder that finance, operations and legal teams need to work together early. If the court orders evidence about revenue, costs or usage, the response needs to be complete, methodical and supported by documents. If the evidence is patchy or opaque, the court may intervene and costs may follow.

The central issue was whether VMS should be compelled at this point to elect between damages and an account of profits. The catchwords identify the legal and practical tension clearly: the balance between an informed choice and the efficient conduct of the case. That is a common remedy-stage problem. A claimant will often say it needs more information before it can choose. A respondent may say enough has already been provided and that it is unfair and inefficient to keep both options alive.

Here, the City contended that VMS had received sufficient information to make the election. That position had been foreshadowed at a case management hearing on 22 November 2024. The reasons also record that counsel for VMS had foreshadowed that by the time VMS filed its points of claim, it would be in a position to make the election. VMS filed amended points of claim on 14 April 2025. By consent orders made on 13 May 2025, Burley J directed that by 23 May 2025 VMS notify the City of its election or, if it contended it could not do so, give reasons. The parties then provided written submissions and the issue was argued on 10 July 2025.

So the court was not deciding the final amount of damages or profits. It was deciding whether the proceeding had reached the point where VMS had enough material to choose one path. That procedural decision matters because the election shapes the next phase of evidence and argument. If damages are pursued, the focus is on compensatory loss. If an account of profits is pursued, the focus is on the respondent’s profits and deductible costs. Requiring an election can therefore narrow the case and avoid further expense on issues that may become irrelevant.

The published text cuts off before the full reasoning is visible. But the orders and the visible reasons make the court’s direction clear: the balance favoured requiring an election now.

Burley J ordered VMS to notify the City in writing of its election between damages and an account of profits within 21 days of 4 September 2025. The court also ordered VMS to pay the costs of the hearing on 10 July 2025 and the preparation for it. In addition, VMS was ordered to pay the costs related to its application to re-open and rely on the affidavit of Mr Piesiewicz sworn 21 July 2025.

On the material visible in the judgment, the court accepted that the case had reached the point where VMS should choose. The catchwords and introductory reasons indicate that the court weighed the claimant’s desire for an informed choice against the need for efficient case management. The result shows that, in this proceeding, efficiency and finality carried significant weight once the City had produced detailed affidavit material about use, revenue and costs.

The costs orders are also important. They show that remedy-stage procedural disputes can have immediate financial consequences of their own. Even before the final monetary remedy is determined, parties can incur adverse costs if the court considers their position on case management issues should not have been maintained, or if they seek to re-open matters late.

Because the published reasons are incomplete, this explainer should not be read as a full account of every step in the court’s reasoning. But the operative outcome is clear from the orders themselves.

For most businesses, the direct subject matter here is specialised patent litigation. But the practical lessons are broader. Once a dispute moves from liability to money, the quality of your records and the clarity of your methodology can become decisive. Courts expect parties to narrow issues, comply with orders and avoid unnecessary cost. If enough information has already been produced, the court may force a choice that changes the whole direction of the remaining case.

If your business supplies software, devices or technical systems, especially to government or enterprise customers, you should assume that usage data, revenue records and cost allocation methods may later need to be explained in evidence. If your business is the customer or user of a system, you may still need to produce detailed operational and financial material showing how the system was used and what revenue or costs were associated with that use.

This case also highlights the importance of internal spreadsheets and accounting assumptions. The reasons refer to formulas used to apportion branch expenses and to line-item allocations made by administration teams. Those are exactly the kinds of details that can be challenged in litigation. A business should be able to explain who created the spreadsheet, what source data was used, what assumptions were applied, and why the apportionment reflects commercial reality.

There is also a conduct point. Earlier non-compliance with affidavit obligations had already led to criticism and costs consequences. That means businesses should not treat court-ordered evidence as a routine administrative task. It needs careful legal supervision and input from the people who actually understand the systems, records and accounting treatment involved.

Can a successful patent claimant keep both remedies open until the very end?

Not always. This case shows the court may require an election once it considers enough information has been produced to allow an informed choice and to keep the case moving efficiently.

Did the court decide the final amount payable here?

No. This judgment dealt with whether VMS had to choose its remedy path, not the final quantum of damages or profits.

What kind of records mattered in this case?

The judgment refers to device use, parking infringement notices, revenue estimates, cost estimates, databases, weekly reports, summary spreadsheets and apportionment formulas. Those records mattered because they informed whether VMS had enough information to elect.

Why were costs ordered against VMS?

The orders required VMS to pay the costs of the 10 July 2025 hearing and preparation for it, and the costs related to its application to re-open and rely on a later affidavit. The orders show that procedural disputes at the remedy stage can themselves create immediate cost exposure.

What should a business do differently after reading this case?

Prepare for remedy-stage evidence early. Make sure your business can explain how revenue figures were generated, how costs were allocated, and what source documents support those calculations.

The judgment is dated 4 September 2025 and was delivered by Burley J in the Federal Court of Australia. The hearing on the election issue took place on 10 July 2025, and the date of last submissions was 25 August 2025. The court record identifies the matter as part of the Intellectual Property National Practice Area, under patents and associated statutes.

The published text of the reasons is incomplete. It includes the orders, catchwords, introductory reasons and part of the procedural background, but it cuts off before the full reasoning is visible. The orders themselves are clear, but some factual and analytical detail may sit in the missing portion of the reasons. For that reason, this page explains the decision conservatively and focuses on what can be stated with confidence from the court record.