Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 3) [2012] FCA 265 Citation: Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 3) [2012] FCA 265
Parties: APOTEX PTY LTD v ASTRAZENECA AB and ASTRAZENECA PTY LTD
File number(s): NSD 673 of 2011
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 23 March 2012
Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – whether interlocutory injunction should be varied –– application dismissed
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Cases cited: Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2011] FCA 1520 Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 2) [2012] FCA 142 Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print Pty Ltd (1988) 217 ALR 44 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524; [2000] FCA 316 Merck & Co Inc v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 31; [2006] FCAFC 91 Watson Pharma Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2012] FCA 200
Dates of hearing: 16-17 March 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 26
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr DK Catterns QC and Mr NR Murray
Solicitor for the Applicant: Freehills
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr T Bannon SC and Mr D Kell
Solicitor for the Respondents: Ashurst
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 673 of 2011
BETWEEN: APOTEX PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: ASTRAZENECA AB
First Respondent
ASTRAZENECA PTY LTD
Second Respondent
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