Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v Sandoz Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 874 File number: NSD 2265 of 2017
Judge: BURLEY J
Date of judgment: 12 June 2018
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – patents – interlocutory application – injunction – prima facie case – validity of patents – inventive step – balance of convenience – application granted
Legislation: National Health Act 1953 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 7, 18, 40, 117
Cases cited: AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 30; 257 CLR 356 AstraZeneca v Apotex [2014] FCAFC 99; 226 FCR 324 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 250; 124 IPR 23 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618 Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1498; 79 IPR 261 Janssen Sciences Ireland UC v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1399 Lockwood Security Products v Doric Pty Ltd [No 2] [2007] HCA 21; 235 CLR 173 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Apotex Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 928; 97 IPR 414 Organic Marketing Australia Pty Ltd v Woolworths Ltd [2011] FCA 279 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 146; 217 FCR 238 Tidy Tea Ltd v Unilever Australia Ltd [1995] FCA 1439; 32 IPR 405 Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 59; 311 ALR 632
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