Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd v Chiron Pty Ltd & Anor Chiron Corp v Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 802

Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd v Chiron Pty Ltd & Anor Chiron Corp v Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 802

The preliminary ten-page United States attorneys' opinion could be admitted, subject to objection, only for the limited purpose of considering whether it rebutted any subjective element in the false suggestion arguments. The balance of the tender, consisting of extensive supporting materials assembled for United States law and practice, was excluded because it would be seriously prejudicial, unfair at that late stage, and would add greatly to the issues in an already complex affidavit-based case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling in Patent Related Proceedings Involving False Suggestion and Inventorship / Tender of United States Attorneys' Opinion During Hearing
Outcome
Preliminary opinion admitted for a limited purpose; balance of tender rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Attorney Opinion Evidence' 'false Suggestion' 'inventorship' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss.135 and 136' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'exclusion of Prejudicial Material']
['evidence' 'patent Law'] ['admissibility of Attorney Opinion Evidence' 'false Suggestion' 'inventorship' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss.135 and 136' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'exclusion of Prejudicial Material']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Evidence Ruling in Patent Related Proceedings Involving False Suggestion and Inventorship / Tender of United States Attorneys' Opinion During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a United States attorneys' opinion on whether Dr Bradley was a co-inventor should be admitted as relevant to the issue of false suggestion." 'Whether use of the opinion should be limited under s.136 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the supporting documents and balance of the tender should be excluded under s.135 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The preliminary ten-page United States attorneys' opinion could be admitted, subject to objection, only for the limited purpose of considering whether it rebutted any subjective element in the false suggestion arguments. The balance of the tender, consisting of extensive supporting materials assembled for United States law and practice, was excluded because it would be seriously prejudicial, unfair at that late stage, and would add greatly to the issues in an already complex affidavit-based case.

Court Disposition

Preliminary opinion admitted for a limited purpose; balance of tender rejected.

Orders

  • ['The opinion expressed in the preliminary ten pages is admitted, subject to objection.' 'Under s.136 of the Evidence Act 1995, use of the admitted opinion is limited to whether it in any manner rebuts any subjective element involved in the arguments on the issue of false suggestion.' 'The balance of the tender is...