Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] FCA 324 Citation: Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] FCA 324
Appeal from: Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd and Ors and Commissioner of Patents and H Lundbeck (Joined Party) [2012] AATA 851
Parties: ASPEN PHARMA PTY LTD ACN 004 118 594, SANDOZ PTY LTD ACN 075 449 553, APOTEX PTY LTD ACN 096 916 148 and ALPHAPHARM PTY LTD ACN 002 359 739 v H LUNDBECK A/S and COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
File number: NSD 2236 of 2012
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 9 April 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a stay of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether a stay would be appropriate to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court – principles relevant to determining whether a stay is appropriate – whether the appeal has some prospect of success – whether the first respondent would lose the benefit of earlier decisions in its favour – relevance of the undesirability of potential parallel proceedings before the Court and the Commissioner of Patents – relevance of potential costs to the applicants in anticipated proceedings before the Commissioner
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth)
Cases cited: Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S (2008) 76 IPR 618 Alphapharm Pty Limited & Ors v H. Lundbeck A/S [2011] APO 36; 92 IPR 628 Broadbent v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] FCA 1871 Catena v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2010] FCA 598 Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1867 H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2009) 177 FCR 151 Hartnett v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2003] FCA 998 Minister of State for Education and Youth Affairs v Bracken (1984) 6 FCR 197 Re Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Patents [2012] AATA 851 Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Mouratidis [2010] FCA 880 Theo v The Secretary, Department of Family Services [2004] FCA 1748
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