Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Interpharma Pty Ltd v Aventis Pharma SA [2011] FCA 32 Citation: Interpharma Pty Ltd v Aventis Pharma SA [2011] FCA 32
Parties: INTERPHARMA PTY LTD v AVENTIS PHARMA SA and SANOFI-AVENTIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD; AVENTIS PHARMA SA, MAY & BAKER LIMITED and SANOFI-AVENTIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v INTERPHARMA PTY LTD HOSPIRA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and HOSPIRA PTY LTD v AVENTIS PHARMA SA and SANOFI-AVENTIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD; AVENTIS PHARMA SA, MAY & BAKER LIMITED and SANOFI-AVENTIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v HOSPIRA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and HOSPIRA PTY LTD
File number(s): NSD 1373 of 2010NSD 1521 of 2010
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 1 February 2011
Catchwords: PATENTS – interlocutory injunctions – where damages will be an adequate remedy – where there has been undue and inadequately explained delay. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory injunctions.
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Cases cited: General Tire & Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457 Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2008) 79 IPR 261; [2008] FCA 1498 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 274; [2004] HCA 58 Molnlycke AB v Procter & Gamble Limited (No 2) [1990] RPC 487 Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 81 IPR 339; [2009] FCA 595
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