Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Novartis AG v Hospira Pty Limited [2012] FCA 1055 Citation: Novartis AG v Hospira Pty Limited [2012] FCA 1055
Parties: NOVARTIS AG and NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 244 160) v HOSPIRA PTY LIMITED (ACN 107 058 328)
File numbers: NSD 1048 of 2012 NSD 1207 of 2012
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 28 September 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
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 18, 20, 24, 40, 97, 98, 117, 138 Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) regs 2.2, 2.3, 3.12
Cases cited: AB Hassle v Pharmacia (Australia) Pty Ltd (1995) 33 IPR 63 Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Limited (2002) 212 CLR 411 Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) (2012) 290 ALR 1; (2012) 96 IPR 185 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Beecham Group Limited v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited (1968) 118 CLR 618 Bone v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1972] 2 NSWLR 651 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v F H Faulding & Co Limited (2000) 97 FCR 524 Businessworld Computers Pty Ltd v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1988) 82 ALR 499 CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260 F Hoffman-La Roche & Co Aktiengesellschaft v Commissioner of Patents (1971) 123 CLR 529 Interpharma Pty Ltd v Aventis Pharma SA [2011] FCA 32 Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2008) 79 IPR 261 Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126 Lockwood Security Products Pty Limited v Doric Products Pty Limited (2004) 217 CLR 274 McCarty v The Council of the Municipality of North Sydney (1918) 18 SR (NSW) 210 Medrad Inc v Alpine Medical Pty Ltd (2009) 82 IPR 101 Northern Territory of Australia v Collins (2008) 235 CLR 619 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 239 Peaudouce SA v Kimberly-Clark Ltd [1996] FSR 680 R v Macfarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan and O'Kelly (1923) 32 CLR 518 Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79; (1988) 11 IPR 289 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 286 ALR 257 Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) (2011) 196 FCR 1 Société des Usines Chimiques Rhône-Poulenc v Commissioner of Patents (1958) 100 CLR 5 Synthetic Turf Development Pty Ltd v Sports Technology International Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 475
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