Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 193 Appeal from: Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 285
File number: NSD 532 of 2017
Judges: ALLSOP Cj, PERRAM and NICHOLAS JJ
Date of judgment: 29 November 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for preliminary discovery – whether Appellant held reasonable belief that it may have had right to obtain relief – consideration of relevant principles EVIDENCE – the opinion rule – whether inadmissible opinion evidence under s 76 of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether rule applies to preliminary discovery application
Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AC Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 4(1), 59(1), 75, 76, 76(1), 77, 136, 190 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 59(4) Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) s 13 Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) (repealed) O 15A r 6 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Division 7.3, rr 7.22, 7.23, 7.23(1), 7.23(1)(a), 7.23(1)(b), 8.05(2), 16.01
Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39; 148 CLR 170 Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd [2009] FCAFC 39; 182 FCR 124 Austrac Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) v New South Wales [2003] FCA 1013 Bailey v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 60; 105 FCR 136 Bonham v Iluka Resources Ltd [2017] FCAFC 95 C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1864 Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited [2015] FCA 317; 112 IPR 1 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; 243 CLR 588 East Grace Corporation v Xing (No 2) [2005] FCA 1266 EBOS Group Pty Ltd v Team Medical Supplies Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 48; 199 FCR 533 Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC [2008] FCAFC 58 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; 170 CLR 104 Hatfield v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 69 Higgins v Hancock as Liquidator of Arabella Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1492 Hooper v Kirella Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1584; 96 FCR 1 John Holland Services Pty Ltd v Terranora Group Management Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 679 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; 52 NSWLR 705 Objectivision Pty Ltd v Visionsearch Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1087; 108 IPR 244 Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1560; 163 FCR 554 Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 285 Poole v Australian Pacific Touring Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 424 Re Paxus Services Ltd v People Bank Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 500; 99 ALR 728 Reeve v Aqualast Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 679 Sabre Corporation Pty Ltd v Russ Kalvin's Hair Care Company [1993] FCA 841;46 FCR 428 Specsavers Pty Ltd v Canstar Blue Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1153 St George Bank Ltd v Rabo Australia Ltd [2004] FCA 1360; 211 ALR 147 Strang Aniokaka Ltd v Lihir Gold Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1065 Telstra Corporation Limited v Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy [2008] FCAFC 7; 166 FCR 64 Thomas v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 144 Toll Transport Pty Ltd v Fleiter [2017] FCA 376 United Voice v Accolade Wines Australia Limited [2013] FCA 285 Voxson Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited (No 7) [2017] FCA 267
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