Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Eli Lilly and Company v Pfizer Research and Development Company NV/SA [2003] FCA 988
PATENTS – application to amend patent by deletion of claim – possible effect on construction argument at trial – amendment ordered – which party to bear costs of application to amend
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 102, 105, 116 Pfizer Ltd's Patent [2001] FSR 16 – discussed Chiron Corporation v Organon Technika Ltd (No 7) [1994] FSR 458 – followed Mabuchi Motor KK's Patents [1996] RPC 387 – followed Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients Gmbh v Scanchem UK Ltd (No 2) [2001] FSR 831 – followed Hoeschst Marion Roussel Ltd & Ors v Kirin-Amgen Inc & Ors [2002] EWHC 471 – followed Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd v RGC Mineral Sands Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 1337 – cited Terrell on the Law of Patents (14th ed) at 245, (15th ed) at 145 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and ANOTHER and PFIZER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NV/SA V604 of 2002 BAYER AKTIENGELLSCHAFT and PFIZER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO NV/SA V111 of 2003 HEEREY J 19 SEPTEMBER 2003
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V604 OF 2002
BETWEEN: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
FIRST APPLICANT
ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 233 992)
SECOND APPLICANT
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY LIMITED
THIRD APPLICANT
AND: PFIZER IRELAND PHARMACEUTICALS
FIRST RESPONDENT
PFIZER PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 422 348)
SECOND RESPONDENT
V111 OF 2003
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