Eli Lilly and Company v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 381

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Eli Lilly and Company v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 381 Citation: Eli Lilly and Company v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 381

Parties: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 233 992) v APOTEX PTY LTD (ACN 096 916 148) and APOTEX PTY LTD (ACN 096 916 148) v ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

File number: NSD 622 of 2012

Judge: NICHOLAS J

Date of judgment: 10 April 2014

Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 192A Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 34.50

Date of hearing: 4 April 2014

Date of publication of reasons: 16 April 2014

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 11

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr AR Lang

Solicitor for the Applicants: Wrays Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr DK Catterns QC

Solicitor for the Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 622 of 2012

BETWEEN: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

First Applicant

ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 233 992)

Second Applicant

AND: APOTEX PTY LTD (ACN 096 916 148)

Respondent

AND BETWEEN: APOTEX PTY LTD (ACN 096 916 148)

Cross-Claimant

AND: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

Cross-Respondent

JUDGE: NICHOLAS J DATE OF ORDER: 10 April 2014 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave is given to the applicants pursuant to rule 34.50 to rely upon the evidence of the experiments referred to in section F9 and section G of the affidavit of Shen Yung Luk sworn 10 March 2014 (Dr Luk's evidence). 2. Order 1 is made without prejudice to the respondent's right to raise any other objection to the admissibility of Dr Luk's evidence apart from that which was taken in reliance upon rule 34.50. 3. The costs of both interlocutory applications are to be the respondent's costs in the proceeding. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.