Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2) [2012] FCA 748 Citation: Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2) [2012] FCA 748
Parties: APOTEX PTY LTD ACN 096 916 148 v LES LABORATOIRES SERVIER; LES LABORATOIRES SERVIER and SERVIER LABORATORIES (AUST) PTY LTD ACN 004 838 500; APOTEX PTY LTD and SYMBION PTY LTD ACN 000 875 034
File number: NSD 51 of 2012
Judge: BENNETT J
Date of judgment: 13 July 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Service outside Australia – whether overseas entities that were part of the same corporate group should be joined to proceeding – whether Court has a discretion to make or refuse an order granting leave to serve a party outside Australia under Rule 10.43 Federal Court Rules 2011 PATENTS – prima facie case – authorisation of infringement – joint tortfeasorship by common design PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Quia timet relief – whether available in circumstances where there is an interim injunction by consent – no primary infringement and no threat of a primary infringement Legislation: Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 101(1A) Federal Court Rules 2011, Division 1.2, 1.3 and 10.4, Rules 10.42 and 10.43 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 13 and Schedule 1 Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) s 3(1)
Cases cited: Alcoa of Australia Ltd (ACN 004 879 298) v Australian Workers' Union (2010) 196 IR 103 followed Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 4) (2010) 89 IPR 274 distinguished Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Metro on George (2004) 210 ALR 244 cited Bell v Steele (2011) 198 FCR 291 Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche (2002) 118 FCR 1 cited CSL Ltd v Glaxosmithkline (2006) 70 IPR 128 cited Century Insurance (in provisional liquidation) v New Zealand Guardian Trust [1996] FCA 376 cited Ho v Akai Pty Ltd (in liq) (2006) 24 ACLC 1526 followed Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 425 cited Inverness Medical Switzerland GMBH v MPS Diagnostics Pty Ltd (2010) 85 IPR 525 cited Magic Menu Systems Pty Ltd v AFA Facilitation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 261 cited Mead Corporation v Riverwood Multiple Packaging [1997] FSR 484 cited Morton-Norwich Products Inc v Intercen Limited [1978] RPC 501 followed Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Copyright Agency Ltd (1996) 65 FCR 399 cited Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers v Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1425 cited RCA Corporation v John Fairfax Sons [1981] 1 NSWLR 251 cited Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Pty Ltd (2012) 286 ALR 466 discussed Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2010) 88 IPR 459 cited Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2010) 88 IPR 633 cited Suzlon Energy Ltd v Bangad (No 3) [2012] FCA 123 cited Unilever PLC v Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd [1994] FSR 15 discussed Unilever PLC v Gillette (UK) Ltd [1989] distinguished WEA International v Hanimex Corp Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 274 cited Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30 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