Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – variation of orders under Federal Court Rules O 35 r 7(1) – where final judgment – where orders have not been entered – where orders delete part of patent specification
Federal Court Rules O 35 r 7(1) Wentworth v Rogers (No. 9) (1987) 8 NSWLR 388 applied Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council (1982) 149 CLR 672 referred to Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256 referred to Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 mentioned
GENETICS INSTITUTE, INC v KIRIN-AMGEN, INC (NO 4) NO. VG 868 of 1995 JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE: 23 JULY 1998 PLACE: MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 868 of 1995
BETWEEN: GENETICS INSTITUTE, INC APPLICANT AND: KIRIN-AMGEN, INC RESPONDENT AND: KIRIN-AMGEN, INC CROSS-APPLICANT GENETICS INSTITUTE, INC CROSS-RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER: 23 JULY 1998
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for variation of orders be dismissed. 2. The time for filing and serving notice of any appeal or application for leave to appeal be extended until 20 August 1998. 3. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the day. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 868 of 1995
BETWEEN: GENETICS INSTITUTE, INC APPLICANT AND: KIRIN-AMGEN, INC RESPONDENT AND: KIRIN-AMGEN, INC CROSS-APPLICANT GENETICS INSTITUTE, INC CROSS-RESPONDENT JUDGE: HEEREY J
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