Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102 Citation: Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102
Appeal from: Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 846 Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 1307
Parties: APOTEX PTY LTD (ACN 096 916 148) v SANOFI-AVENTIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 008 558 807), SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH and AVENTISUB II INCORPORATED
File number: NSD 2133 of 2011
Judges: KEANE CJ, BENNETT & YATES JJ
Date of judgment: 18 July 2012
Catchwords: PATENTS – proper construction of claim of patent – method claim – medical treatment – validity – whether invention novel – whether invention as claimed a manner of manufacture – infringement – whether appellant threatened to infringe patent by supplying pharmaceutical product for particular purposes COPYRIGHT – product information for pharmaceutical product – whether respondents bound by an implied licence – whether licence implied by custom in the industry
Legislation: Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 15, 36, 183, 44BA Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 13, 18, 40, 117, 138 Statute of Monopolies 1623: 21 Jac 1 c 3 s 6 Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) s 25AA Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Copyright) Act 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 173 cited Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1 discussed Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis Australia [2012] FCAFC 62 referred to Avel Proprietary Limited v Multicoin Amusements Proprietary Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 88 cited Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v F H Faulding & Company Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 discussed British United Shoe Machinery Co Ltd v A. Fussell & Sons Ltd (1908) 25 RPC 631 cited Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 41 discussed Catnic Components Limited v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 cited Concrete Pty Limited v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577 cited Con-Stan Industries of Australia Proprietary Limited v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Limited (1986) 160 CLR 226 discussed Copyright Agency Limited v State of New South Wales (2008) 233 CLR 279 cited H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2009) 177 FCR 151 cited Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 discussed Hill v Evans (1862) 4 De GF & J 288; 1A IPR 1 cited ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v The Lubrizol Corporation Inc (2000) 106 FCR 214 cited Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611 cited Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd v Roland Corporation (1992) 23 IPR 376 cited Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton & Company Ltd [1996] RPC 76 cited National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 cited Northern Territory v Collins (2008) 235 CLR 619 cited Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 cited Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 25 IPR 119 discussed Reynolds v Herbert Smith & Co Ltd (1903) 20 RPC 123 cited Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 846 referred to Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 1307 referred to The General Tire & Rubber Company v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited [1972] RPC 457 applied
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate