Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 657 File number(s): NSD 2149 of 2016
Judge(s): BURLEY J
Date of judgment: 13 May 2019
Catchwords: COSTS – application for preliminary discovery pursuant to r 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where prospective applicant was substantially successful in application which was contested by prospective respondents – discretion in making costs orders pursuant to s 43(2) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to be exercised judicially – contingent costs order not appropriate – prospective applicant awarded 50% of its costs PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – preliminary discovery – confidentiality – principles to be applied – restrictions imposed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AF, 37M, 37N Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 7.23 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 97(3)
Cases cited: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Ainsworth Game Technology Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 511 C7 Pty Ltd v Foxtel Management Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1864 Cappuccio v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1999] FCA 1188 Cobankara v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2017] FCA 419 Conor Medsystems Inc v University of British Columbia (No 4) [2007] FCA 324 Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited (No 3) [2015] FCA 422; 327 ALR 695 E D Oates Pty Ltd v Edgar Edmondson Imports [2012] FCA 356 Gearhart United Pty Ltd v Omni Oil Technologies (Asia) SDN BHD (No 2) [2010] FCA 558 Glencore International AG v Selwyn Mines Limited [2005] FCA 801; 223 ALR 238 Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280; 1 All ER 532 Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; 235 CLR 125 J & A Vaughan Super Pty Ltd v Becton Property Group Limited [2013] FCA 340 ObjectiVision Pty Ltd v Visionsearch Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 304 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 285 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 193; 257 FCR 62 Procter v Kalivis (No 3) [2010] FCA 1194 Sabre Corporation Pty ltd v Russ Kalvin's Hair Care Company [1993] FCA 841; 124 ALR 400 SmithKline Beecham plc v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 271 Steffen v ANZ Banking Group [2009] NSWSC 883
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