Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2003] FCA 642 PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – intellectual property – application for revocation of patent – whether respondent patentee should be ordered to plead to Particulars of Invalidity filed by applicant for revocation as an excuse in case management – whether patentee should provide particulars of inventive step and identity of person skilled in the art as sought by applicant for revocation – categories of documents required for discovery by patentee – whether further and better particulars should be provided to patentee by applicant for revocation of Particulars of Invalidity – whether certain categories of documents should be provided by applicant for revocation to patentee.
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7(1)(b), 18, 43(b)(i) and (ii), 40(2)(a), 43 and 138 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)s 260 Federal Court Rules Order 10 rules 1(1) and 1(2)(a)(v); Order 12 rules 1(1) and 5(1)(a); Order 58 rule 15 White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333 Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 116 Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v SDAEA (Western Australia) (1987) 13 FCR 413 Sunbeam Corporation v Morphy-Richards (Aust) Pty Ltd (1961) 180 CLR 98 Werner & Company v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd (1989) 13 IPR 513 Grace Australia Pty Ltd v MBT Holding AG [2002] FCA 1512 Bailey v Commissioner of Taxation (1977) 136 CLR 214 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Tyco Electronics Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 315 Freeman & Anor v T J & F I Pohlner Pty & Anor (1994) 30 IPR 377 Fina Research SA v Halliburton Energy Services [2003] FCA 55 Aktiebolaget Hassle and Another v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2003) 194 ALR 485 Wellcome Foundation Ltd v V R Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 Pinson v Lloyds [1941] 2 KB 72 George v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1952) 86 CLR 183 F Hoffman-La Roche AG v New England Biolabs Inc (2000) 176 ALR 108; (2001) 50 IPR 305 Lubrizol Corporation Inc & Ors v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (2001) 50 IPR 526 ARROW PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v MERCK & CO INC N 1211 OF 2002 CONTI J 27 JUNE 2003 SYDNEY
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