Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Sanofi v Amgen Inc. [2023] FCA 264 File number: NSD 876 of 2022
Judgment of: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 24 March 2023
Catchwords: PATENTS – whether order for discovery of documents should be made in appeal pursuant to s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether appellant should be granted leave to rely on experimental proof pursuant to r 34.50(2)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in said appeal Held: discovery refused – leave under r 34.50(2)(b) granted on terms for some experiments and refused for others
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 55 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M-37P Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.11, 20.14, 20.15, 34.50 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) s 60(4) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 60, 160
Cases cited: AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 226 FCR 324 Bristol Myers Squibb Co v F H Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 527 D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc (2015) 258 CLR 334 F Hoffman-La Roche v Chiron Corporation (2000) 47 IPR 516 Genetics Institute Inc v Kirin-Amgen Inc (1999) 92 FCR 106 Kimberly Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2014) 217 CLR 274 Rinehart v Rinehart (No 2) [2015] FCA 339
Division: General Division
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