Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited [2011] FCA 1164 Citation: Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited [2011] FCA 1164
Parties: APPLE INC. and APPLE PTY LIMITED ACN 002 510 054 v SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LIMITED and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED ACN 002 915 648
File number: NSD 1243 of 2011
Judge: BENNETT J
Date of judgment: 13 October 2011
Catchwords: PATENTS – application for interlocutory injunction restraining launch of respondents' product – alleged infringement of two patents – cross-claim for invalidity of one of the patents PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – alleged infringement of patents – application for interlocutory injunction restraining launch of respondents' product – whether prima facie case – relevance of cross-claim for invalidity of patents to assessment of prima facie case PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for interlocutory injunction – balance of convenience – relevance of parties' willingness to move for early final hearing – whether significant detriment – whether damages are an adequate remedy – whether interlocutory relief equivalent to final relief – relevance of preservation of status quo – delay – relevance of "eyes wide open" – strength of prima facie case
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 13(1), 18(1)(b)(i)
Cases cited: Alphapharm Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 82 IPR 71 followed American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 cited Appleton Papers Inc v Tomasetti Paper Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 208 cited Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 applied Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 at 622-623 applied/distinguished Beecham Group PLC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd (2004) 64 IPR 45 referred to Dudgeon v Thomson (1874) 30 LT 244 cited F Hoffman-La Roche AG v New England Biolabs Inc (2000) 99 FCR 56 referred to GenRx Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis (2007) 73 IPR 502 applied Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2008) 79 IPR 261 applied Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 543 followed Merck and Co Inc v GenRx Pty Ltd (2006) 70 IPR 286 cited Pharmacia Italia SpA v Interpharma Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 397 cited Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 81 IPR 339 applied Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences (2009) 82 IPR 467 applied Tidy Tea Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd (1995) 32 IPR 405 applied Welch Perrin and Company Pty Ltd v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588 cited
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