Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 239 Citation: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 239
Parties: OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v GENERIC HEALTH PTY LTD (ACN 110 617 859)
File number(s): NSD 121 of 2012
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 16 March 2012
Catchwords: PATENTS – application for interlocutory injunctions – threatened supply of generic pharmaceutical products – imminent listing of products in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Schedule – whether prima facie case of infringement – whether balance of convenience and justice favours the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief – whether undertakings should be accepted in lieu of interlocutory injunctive relief PATENTS – discussion of meaning of "exploit" as used in s 13 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – "Swiss-style" claims – discussion whether claimed invention is a method or process PATENTS – method of treatment claims – infringement by supply – discussion whether generic pharmaceutical product a staple commercial product – whether instructions or inducement given to use the product in a claimed method of treatment PATENTS – "Gillette defence" – discussion whether a separate and discrete defence under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 13, 18, 117, 138 and Sch 1
Cases cited: Aktiebolaget Hassle v Biochemie Australia Pty Ltd (2003) 57 IPR 1 Appleton Papers Inc v Tomasetti Paper Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 208 Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2011] FCA 1520 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [1999] RPC 253 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [2001] RPC 1 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc and the Minister of Health (2008) 75 IPR 625 Gillette Safety Razor Company v Anglo-American Trading Company Ld (1913) 30 RPC 465 Hexal Australia Pty Ltd v Roche Therapeutics Inc (2005) 66 IPR 325 Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2008) 79 IPR 261 John Wyeth & Brother Ltd's Application [1985] RPC 545 McCarty v The Council of the Municipality of North Sydney (1918) 18 SR (NSW) 210 Northern Territory v Collins (2008) 235 CLR 619 Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2000] 2 NZLR 529 Pharmacia Italia SpA v Interpharma Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 397 R v MacFarlane; Ex Parte O'Flanagan and O'Kelly (1923) 32 CLR 518 Re Eisai's Application – Second Medical Indication [1985] OJ EPO 64 Samsung Electronics Co Limited v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156 Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) (2011) 196 FCR 1 Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 81 IPR 339 Tidy Tea Ltd & Lyons Tetley Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd (1995) 32 IPR 405 Woodbridge Foam Corporation v AFCO Automotive Foam Components Pty Ltd (2002) 58 IPR 56
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