Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 5) [2015] FCA 334 Citation: Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 5) [2015] FCA 334
Parties: APOTEX PTY LTD ACN 096 916 148 v LABORATORIES (AUST) PTY LTD AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE; LES LABORATOIRIES SERVIER AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE v APOTEX PTY LTD ACN 096 916 148 AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE; ACTAVIS PTY LIMITED ACN 003 854 626
File number: NSD 51 of 2012
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 12 March 2015
Catchwords: COSTS – where ultimately successful party lost on nearly all issues litigated in lengthy trial – where issue on which successful party won involved very limited time and evidence – exercise of discretion under s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – power to order costs under s 43(3)(e) regardless of whether party successful in proceedings – where departure from general rule that applicant patentee seeking amendment pay costs of opposing party in litigation and of any third party opponent – offer of compromise under r 25.14(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – application of principles in Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) Practice of the High Court of Chancery (5th ed (1871) vol 2, p 1239)
Cases cited: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205 Apotex Pty Limited v AstraZeneca AB (No 5) [2013] FCA 560 Apotex Pty Limited v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 3) [2009] FCA 1069 Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier [2013] FCA 1426 Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier [2015] FCA 104 C Van Der Lely NV v Ruston's Engineering Co Ltd [1993] RPC 45 Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 Eli Lilly and Co v Pfizer Research and Development Co NV/SA (2003) 59 IPR 234 Elecspess Pty Limited v LED Technologies Pty Limited (2013) 215 FCR 95 Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Limited (2007) 234 CLR 52 Gambro Pty Limited v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Limited [2000] FCA 407 Gray v Richards (No. 2) (2014) 89 ALJR 113 Innovative Agricultural Products Pty Limited v Crawshaw (No 2) [1996] AIPC 91-281 Insight SRC IP Holdings Pty Limited v Australian Council for Education Research Limited (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 73 Kazar v Kargarian (2011) 197 FCR 113 Novozymes A/S v Danisco A/S (No 2) [2013] FCAFC 55 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 Patent Gesellschaft AG v Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Company (1996) 33 IPR 461 Probiotec Limited v University of Melbourne (2008) 166 FCR 30 Sagacious Legal Pty Limited v Wesfarmers General Insurance Limited [2011] FCAFC 53 Waterside Warkers' Federation v Stewart (1919) 27 CLR 119
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