Conor Medsystems, Inc. v The University of British Columbia (No 3) [2006] FCA 121

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Conor Medsystems, Inc. v The University of British Columbia (No 3) [2006] FCA 121 PATENTS – insufficiency – party making allegation manufactures similar product – whether required to discover documents relating to development of its own workable prototype

Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol-Myers Co [1979] VR 273 cited British Association of Glass Bottle Manufacturers, Limited v Nettlefold [1912] 1 KB 369 cited Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55 cited F Hoffman-La Roche AG v Chiron Corporation (2000)171 ALR 295 cited Hall v Truman, Hanbury, & Co (1885) 29 Ch D 307 cited Jones v Monte Video Gas Co (1880) 5 QBD 556 cited Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1 cited Lyell v Kennedy (1884) 27 Ch D 1 cited Newall v Telegraph Construction Company (1866) LR 2 Eq 756 cited Pfizer-Overseas Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly and Co [2005] FCAFC 224 followed Saull v Browne (1874) LR 17 Eq 402 cited Storey v Lennox (1836) 1 Keen 341 cited Vyse v Foster (1872) LR 13 Eq 602 cited Weir v Greening [1957] VR 296 cited White v Spaffard & Co [1901] 2 KB 241 cited Blanco White's Patents for Inventions (1983) Daniells's Chancery Practice (7th ed, 1901)

CONOR MEDSYSTEMS, INC. v THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and ANGIOTECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (formerly ANGIOGENESIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.) VID 254 of 2005 FINKELSTEIN J 21 FEBRUARY 2006 SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 254 of 2005

BETWEEN: CONOR MEDSYSTEMS, INC

Applicant

AND: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and ANGIOTECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

(formerly ANGIOGENESIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)

Respondents

JUDGE: FINKELSTEIN J